The Democratic governors of Vermont, Minnesota, Connecticut, New York and Washington have banned all non-essential government travel to Mississippi over a new religious freedom law that protects pastors, faith-based organizations and business owners who object to being complicit in another’s same-sex ceremony.

“Discrimination is not a New York value. We believe our diversity is our greatest strength, and we will continue to reject the politics of division and exclusion,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo said in a statement on Tuesday. “This Mississippi law is a sad, hateful injustice against the LGBT community, and I will not allow any non-essential official travel to that state until it is repealed.”

“This act of discrimination is discriminatory against many Mississippi residents, and violates their Constitutional rights,” Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton also remarked. “We cannot allow this injustice to go unanswered. When the rights of some Americans are threatened, it is the responsibility of all Americans to stand in opposition to those discriminatory acts.”

As previously reported, last Friday, the Mississippi House of Representatives passed H.B. 1523, also known as the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act. It had been passed days prior in the Senate.

“The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that: marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman; sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual’s immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth,” the legislation, authored by House Speaker Phillip Gunn, reads.

The bill then prohibits the government from punishing those who decline to officiate same-sex ceremonies or provide services or accommodations for the celebrations, as well as those whose policies require use of locker and restrooms consistent with their biological gender.

It does not permit persons to refuse service in general, but only to decline forms of personal participation in events that conflict with their faith.

“The state government shall not take any discriminatory action against a person wholly or partially on the basis that the person has provided or declined to provide … services, accommodations, facilities, goods, or privileges for a purpose related to the solemnization, formation, celebration, or recognition of any marriage, based upon or in a manner consistent with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction,” it reads in part.

“Mississippians from all walks of life believe that the government shouldn’t punish someone because of their views on marriage,” stated Alliance Defending Freedom legal counsel Kellie Fiedorek. “After all, you’re not free if your beliefs are confined to your mind. What makes America unique is our freedom to peacefully live out those beliefs, and the Constitution protects that freedom.”

Mississippi Gov. Phil Bryant has defended the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act, stating that it “merely reinforces the rights which currently exist to exercise of religious freedom as stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

Become a Christian News Network Supporter...

Dear Reader, has ChristianNews.net been of benefit and a blessing to you? For many years now, the Lord has seen fit to use this small news outlet as a strong influential resource in keeping Christians informed on current events from a Biblical worldview. Striving to bring you the news without compromise and with Christ in focus, we press on despite recent changes in Facebook and Google's algorithms, which has limited our readership, and, as a result, has affected operational site revenue. If you have benefited from our news coverage, would you please prayerfully consider becoming a Christian News Network supporter by clicking here to make a one-time or monthly donation to help keep the truth widely and freely published and distributed?May Christ continue to be exalted through this work!

Commenting Guidelines: We welcome readers to comment on stories, but we will not tolerate remarks containing profanity, vulgarity, violence, blasphemy, all caps or any discourteous behavior. Thank you for your cooperation in maintaining a respectful public environment where readers can engage in reasonable discussion about matters affecting our nation and our world.Read More →

The Last Trump

Once again, those who claim to stand against discrimination, doing the discriminating!
Lets see now, which government types regularly engage in banning opposing ideologies?
Exactly.

Gott Mit Uns!

“Opposing ideologies” is one thing. Discriminatory laws and actions based on those “opposing ideologies” is something else.

Oboehner

Discrimination against a deviant lifestyle choice is not possible.

Gott Mit Uns!

Nope, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Oboehner

Sexual orientation = a deviant lifestyle choice.

Ronald Carter

No, that’s nuts.

Oboehner

Just as nuts as bestiality and the like.

Ronald Carter

Once again – consent. Look it up.

Oboehner

Once again, Colonel Sanders KFC – look it up.

Ronald Carter

What does Colonel Sanders and KFC have to do with anything? Consenting adult human beings are not breaking any laws.

Oboehner

An act of abuse? You speaking for the animals now? Being finger licking good isn’t abuse? Your double standards are showing.

Ronald Carter

Irrelevant. We eat animals to live.

Oboehner

Then answer the question, Which do you think the animal would prefer, being eaten or someone having sex with it? And then explain “We eat animals to live” to a vegan.

Ronald Carter

The animal’s preference is not considered. But having sex with one is considered cruelty to animals by – well, everybody. Vegans have one opinion, others have a different one. Not relevant to this discussion in any way shape or form.

Oboehner

Absolutely relevant, people who have sex with animals have the exact same mental disorder, the only difference is the object of their twisted desire.

Ronald Carter

“people who have sex with animals have the exact same mental disorder”

No. Look the two words up: Bestiality. Homosexuality.

Then tell your local psychiatric sources that they are the same, and watch the funny expressions they give you as they quietly and quickly escort you from their building.

Oboehner

Same mental disorder – an unnatural sexual attraction. Your appeal to authority crap holds no value, I’ve read articles by psychologists stating gay is a mental disorder, one even stated 80% of gays wish they weren’t.

Ronald Carter

You don’t get to define “unnatural”. You keep stating your opinion as though it’s the law or factual and it’s not. And pointing to medical facts and findings isn’t appealing to authority because it’s settled science. If you want me to take your “statistics” seriously, start citing credible sources. Otherwise you have nothing but your own opinion.

Oboehner

Nature defines unnatural, I don’t have to. I state facts that are unpopular among the gaystapo therefore go unpublished as with anything else the doesn’t portray gays in a positive light – example: look at the difference the highly biased and handpicked media coverage was for the Matthew Shepard case vs. the non-existent coverage the Jesse Dirkhising incident received.

Ronald Carter

Unnatural – so you’re opposed then to eyeglasses, polyester and air conditioning as well?

“Gaystapo” – further proof you can’t make a single point without using hatred-loaded euphemisms.

Why don’t you go look at how many incidents similar to Mathew Shepard’s, and then go look at how many incidents similar to Jesse Dirkhising’s there are. While you’re at it, look at stats stating how many homosexuals there are in the world. Or transgendered. Then look up how many people want to get married to their mothers, sisters or house plants. Might just open your eyes a little bit.

Oboehner

“so you’re opposed then to eyeglasses, polyester and air conditioning as well?” If you are having sex with them…
“hatred-loaded euphemisms.” What would you call people who make death threats, boy scouts?
“Why don’t you go look at how many incidents” You left out “reported”, the point is the Shepard case was national news ad nauseam, while Dirkhising got next to nothing but a local snippet on page 10.

Ronald Carter

“If you are having sex with them…” Oh, so “unnatural” applies only in situations where you want it to. Gotcha.

“What would you call people who make death threats, boy scouts?” – where does THIS come from, some lone headline from your local Christian newspaper which is supposed to tie in every other homosexual on earth? You have a very bad habit of assuming that what is the case for one is the case for all.
Shepard was national news because it became synonymous with an epidemic. The Dirkhising case was, as your death threats example above, a lone isolated incident.

Oboehner

Oh, so the best you can come up with to argue gays are somehow born that way is polyester, gotcha.
One lone headline, LOL – I’ve clearly demonstrated how the media doesn’t report anything that shows gays in a poor light.

“a lone isolated incident” More ignorant BS, just as lone as the Shepard case which wasn’t even about being gay, it was about drugs and money. Homosexuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.

Ronald Carter

“Oh, so the best you can come up with to argue gays are somehow born that way is polyester, gotcha.” – No, and in fact, we don’t know if they’re born that way or if it forms in early life. “Unnatural” is the word you used, not me. But unnatural ONLY where sex is concerned? Oh, I see. You’re changing the rules, but OK, I can still play this. I know a straight couple who use several, shall we say, objects when they engage in sex. Are they OK but gay couples who use nothing aren’t? Tap dance away, I can’t wait to hear your justification.

“I’ve clearly demonstrated how the media doesn’t report anything that shows gays in a poor light.” – so now it’s the media’s fault that people are gay. Great!

“it was about drugs and money.” – “McKinney’s defense counsel argued that McKinney had only intended to rob
Shepard, but had killed him in a rage when Shepard made a sexual
advance.” Nice try. And this was the DEFENSE counsel’s argument…but just “ignorant BS”, huh?

“Homosexuals from the 1 to 3 percent of the population that is sexually attracted to the same sex are committing up to one-third of the sex crimes against children.” – pathetic lie. Citation please.

Oboehner

“No, and in fact, we don’t know if they’re born that way or if it forms in early life” Yet somehow there is “scientific” data and I’m wrong – this is a pathetic waste of time.

Ronald Carter

Science doesn’t have all the answers yet. But in this case that doesn’t matter. It wouldn’t make any difference if people were born with it or if it just happened on its own. It’s normal and occurs in up to ten percent of the population and throughout the animal kingdom. You can’t pretend it doesn’t exist. You can’t pretend that people decide to be attracted to each other.

Oboehner

It’s not normal, the animal kingdom is irrelevant, they murder each other and even eat their own young, or is that normal human behavior too?
You can’t pretend that people don’t decide to be attracted to each other.

Ronald Carter

No, the animal kingdom is NOT irrelevant, it goes to show that this is natural in the sense that it occurs in nature on its own, the animals don’t make a decision to be gay any more than human beings would (of all the absurd things to suggest). And there are no forces at work urging the animals to be homosexual. And if animals don’t choose it then why on earth would human beings? You don’t and can’t control whom you are attracted to.

Oboehner

I don’t know if you’ve noticed, animals act on instinct, humans have critical thinking ability, thus making anything animals do irrelevant in regard to human behavior. You don’t plan on eating your young do you?

Ronald Carter

And once again the point goes sailing straight over your cranium.

The point is not that we should BEHAVE as animals do. The point is the sexual attraction occurs in nature throughout all animals including us. So it’s natural, and not chosen, as you keep stamping your little feet and insisting.

Oboehner

There is NO sexual attraction between animals, only instinct. Your logic would dictate pedophilia, incest, cannibalism, murder, eating one’s young, necrophilia, etc. are natural and not chosen. Once again animals (possessing no critical thinking ability) are much different from humans (who posses critical thinking and reasoning skills).

Ronald Carter

“There is NO sexual attraction between animals, only instinct” – I’ll believe that when science proves it, not the opinion of a person with a chip on his shoulder and a religion to reinforce it.

“Your logic would dictate pedophilia, incest, cannibalism, murder, eating one’s young, necrophilia, etc. are natural and not chosen” – Yes, in the animal kingdom that would be true. Again, we’re not having a discussion about what’s moral, we’re discussing what happens naturally. Human beings have many things in common with other animals. And we have many things that make us different. You are muddying the waters once again. The point of homosexuality occurring in the animal kingdom was made to show that it’s not chosen but innate for SOME animals. Just as it is for SOME humans.

John N

Homosexuality is natural. Example: outside humans, more than 150 species of animals show some kind of homosexual behaviour.

Religion is unnatural . Example: no animals outside humans do show religious behaviour.

Therefore religious behaviour is deviant, a mental disorder and should be forbidden in public.

Now that was easy, was it not? And only using your own ‘logic’.

lizk

that’s because of sin. Jesus will soon come back before mankind destroys everything. We are told to check everything to the word of God.

Oboehner

“150 species of animals show some kind of homosexual behavior.” Lamest gay argument ever. Animals act out of instinct, if a male deer (buck) smells a doe in heat he goes into action. Is that because he loves the doe, or because he is following instinct? Animals eat each other, some even eat their young -I suppose it’s ok if we do that too huh? “And only using your own ‘logic’.”

John N

So you do not have any rational argument for homosexual behaviour being natural. Or do you claim ‘instinct’ is unnatural too? No? Thanks for confirming.

What is even more important, you same to have overlooked that religious behaviour is unnatural and is therefore to be considered a mental disorder. After all, it does not appear in nature, and nature defines unnatural, you don’t have to. Glad you came to realise that. Oboehner, the guy who by, by using only ‘logic’, showed us religious people are in fact mentally disordered. Nice. Even an atheist would never say that of a fellow human being without any evidence.

Ronald Carter

That “whoosh” sound you heard was everything you just said sailing clearly over his head.

Oboehner

So you think that eating one’s children is natural. Thanks for confirming.
Humans have the ability for rational thought, hence religious belief like you and everyone else on the planet has.

Ronald Carter

Would not “deviant” be just your opinion?

Paige Turner

He thinks that his opinion is fact. It’s sad.

Oboehner

Nope.

Ronald Carter

Fine, tell me where the law speaks against “deviancy” then and how they define it.

Oboehner

Tell me how a behavior choice can be discriminated against.

Ronald Carter

Because homosexuality is not an action, it’s a state of being. You can be homosexual, that is, attracted to the same sex and never even act on your feelings. It is what a person is, not what they do.

Oboehner

You can be a homosexual, or a pedophile, or commit incest (with consent), or whatever. It takes a choice to act upon it just like the heroin user.

Ronald Carter

There is no good reason not to act on it if you are homosexual. Would you ask a heterosexual to be attracted to someone of the same sex? Of course not. That is why they are called homosexuals. Understand how it works now?

Oboehner

Sure like there’s no good reason not to act on it if you are a crack smoker.

Ronald Carter

Ridiculous analogy as always. No one gets hurt in a consensual homosexual relationship, but smoking crack is harmful. Both are, of course, none of your business and do not affect your life in any way, so there is that.

Oboehner

Nope, you are just trying to muddy the waters. Sodomy is harmful, promiscuous sodomy is extremely harmful and is rampant in the gay male community. The suicide rate is disproportionately high among gays. Gay men (and some women) are hopelessly sexually addicted, gay women are a miserable bitter lot – I have witnessed it many times. Smoking crack is no more harmful the gay behavior, the symptoms are just more obvious.

Ronald Carter

Sodomy is harmful? Got a source for that? Is it more harmful for gays than straights or something? Promiscuity IS harmful because the chance for disease is increased, but that is true for gay and straight people alike so your argument dies there.

The suicide rate IS high for gays. Might that have anything to do with religions telling them how evil and worthless they are? That a nice big dose of Jesus is all they need to get their lives back on track? Wow. You need a serious wake up call. And when you try something fraudulent like reparative therapy, all you do is make things more painful and difficult and drive them harder to kill themselves.

Sex addiction – ridiculous. People have sex for pleasure and because they are in love. It is no different for gay and straight people, and there are statistics on that. It is crazy to think that a straight couple are in love but a gay couple are merely sex addicted, and how insulting to suggest that gay people you don’t even know and whose experience you can’t imagine cannot experience love towards each other.

Smoking crack will kill you. Being a homosexual will not.

Oboehner

There you go again with the “but everybody else does it” crap again. Yes Sodomy is harmful from a physical health standpoint (there is harmful bacteria in fecal matter as well as the fact that orifice is not meant for that), and from an emotional one as well – suicide rate remember?
“Might that have anything to do with religions telling them how evil and worthless they are?” Or perhaps them having a mental problem to begin with.
“And when you try something fraudulent like reparative therapy” there are quacks in every form of mental healthcare, fact remains there are numerous ex-gays and counting. Most places that could help are afraid of the fall out if they go public – death threats and all.
“Sex addiction – ridiculous. People have sex for pleasure and because they are in love.” I see I am dealing with someone ignorant of the gay male lifestyle, educate yourself before looking the fool *hint* tea party sex. One can die just as well from gay sex as from crack, just ask Freddie Mercury.

Ronald Carter

If you’re going to continue to use “sodomy” as a word that’s interchangeable with “homosexuality”, then you’re going to be reminded of the fact that straight people engage in it as well, so your use of the word is always going to be wildly incorrect and off the mark. Start calling them words that everyone can get on board with. Why do you need to brand them with hateful epithets? All that does is show people how angry and unreasonable you are.

And the “sodomy is harmful” argument fails for the exact reason – because the issue is homosexuality and not a specific sexual practice which some people practice and some people don’t.

Homosexuals don’t have mental problems, if you’re going to try to make that one fly you better have some pretty good stats from a respected body of science, because that’s going back many decades.

No one is ex-gay. You’d benefit from an understanding on human sexuality. You are what you are, and abstaining from sexual conduct doesn’t change your attraction. You know as well as I do that you can’t be made to be attracted to the same sex. I know I sure as heck can’t. So why are you trying to enforce this on people you don’t know? Is that a very “Christian” thing to do?

Why don’t you attend a gay wedding sometime and then tell me that gay men can’t be in love. We aren’t talking about sleazy gay bar one night stands, although those exist too. And once AGAIN, you’re making comparisons to the gay community that apply in EVERY SINGLE RESPECT to the straight community too. One can die just as well from straight sex. Of HIV/AIDS. Like I’ve told you before, the disease doesn’t discriminate. It goes after people who don’t use protection – gay and straight alike.

Oboehner

“then you’re going to be reminded of the fact that straight people engage in it as well, so your use of the word is always going to be wildly incorrect and off the mark” Do give the percentage of gay men vs. hetero couple who engage in sodomy, other wise wear the title as a badge – they deserve it. Besides, it is a legitimate description no matter how much you whine about it.
Homosexuals have mental problems ranging from women who hate men, and men and women who are sexually addicted. Addiction is a mental problem.
“No one is ex-gay.” There are numerous ex-gays who would disagree.
“You’d benefit from an understanding on human sexuality” You’d benefit from something other than gay propaganda and lies. they are as sick as people who have sex with animals, children, dead people, inanimate objects, etc. etc. You wouldn’t know the first thing about what the “Christian” thing to do even is.

Again, show the stats of the promiscuity of gay men and normal people. The wife works with the sister of a gay man and would back up everything I say, she has been witness to some of their “parties”.

“the disease doesn’t discriminate” The more promiscuous, the more rampant – that’s why gay men are astronomically more prone to catching it.

I’m really curious why you think that a straight relationship is a loving bond but a gay one is sexual addiction. There’s no way on earth you could prove that – how ridiculous to think that homosexuals are incapable of love.

There are probably plenty of people who’ve convinced themselves they are ex-gay, but it’s never been proven and in fact the evidence suggests strongly that human sexuality is fixed.

Nothing I have posted is gay propaganda. Unless you’re going to tell me that scientific findings are no more than “appeals to authority” and written only to further some imaginary gay agenda. And I know many Christians who have no issue with homosexuality at all.

I believe your story about your wife’s co-worker, but once again you put all gay people in the same box and assume they have all the same behavior. That’s as bizarre as assuming all straight men have the same behavior.

Everything you are posting is evidence of only one thing, your own personal opinions on the matter. You are rejecting the accepted science and turning instead to your own anger on the subject which is evident in the derogatory language you keep using.

Oboehner

Again, gay is a mental disorder.

Ronald Carter

No, but willful ignorance is.

Oboehner

Again, gay is a mental disorder, I even gave reasons people are gay.

Ronald Carter

You gave, as I mentioned, outdated reasons that people stopped taking seriously oh, several decades ago. And if you think the APA should be disqualified because they are in bed with the gay lobbyists, maybe you could explain how practically every other mental health organization is in full agreement with them. Want a list?

Oboehner

None of them are outdated, just not popular with the gay community therefore scrubbed and replaced with rumors of “science” and psychobabble.

Ronald Carter

Nope. You just gave the stock weak-father/overprotective-mother argument that makes therapists roll their eyes. But you refuse to acknowledge that love can exist between people of the same sex and so you call it “sex addiction”, the hallmark of someone who is clearly coming up with his own explanations because he doesn’t like the real data being presented by responsible people, so maybe this isn’t surprising. It must be very frustrating being you, trying to bend reality to your neuroses.

All those thousands of gay and lesbian couples wanting to get married – every single one of them is lying, every single one is sex-addicted and not actually in love? Is this what you’re really trying to float here?

Oboehner

You missed a few, but therapists can roll their eyes until they drop out, changes nothing. Confusing “love” with lust doesn’t help your cause either, I love broccoli but that doesn’t mean I need to sodomize it.
“the real data being presented” – no data, just rumors of data.
“every single one is sex-addicted” Who is clearly coming up with his own explanations because he doesn’t like the real data being presented?

Ronald Carter

You cannot conceive of two people of the same sex being in love so what you do is say that it’s wrong and unnatural, which is totally a gut reaction and an opinion reinforced by no one on earth apart from possibly your church. You’re essentially saying that all those people lining up for same-sex marriage are part of a grand conspiracy theory and I don’t think you need me to tell you how bonkers that is.

“no data, just rumors of data.” – No, it’s real data. But because you don’t like it you pretend it’s not there.”Who is clearly coming up with his own explanations because he doesn’t like the real data being presented?” – You are, because sex addiction is irrelevant to homosexuality, in fact it’s experienced primarily by straight men.

John N

Oboehner, you are overdoing it. Posting silly comments on a christian website can hardly be considered living a ‘deviant lifestyle’. Although we might make an exception for you.

No, we are talking about the discrimination of human beings based on the fact they are different from you – in skin colour, beliefs, gender, sexual orientation, … That kind of ugly behaviour.

Well, you know, it’s one of those embarrassing things like wearing a shirt inside-out or having toilet paper on your shoe – you would still rather that somebody told you…

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

No, it’s similar to the US Federal govt discriminating against ex-felons for gun-ownership, employers discriminating against ex-felons n banks discriminating against bankrupts.

Oboehner

John N, you are overdoing it. Trolling on a christian website is pathetic.
One’s behavior choice (sexual orientation) is in no way even in the same hemisphere as skin color or biological gender… that’s beyond a stretch.

Paige Turner

No, being an ignorant bigot is pathetic. Being unable to conduct a cogent, intelligent discussion with another human is pathetic and making inflammatory comments about minorities is pathetic. Thats you by the way.

Oboehner

Bigot, LOL How can one be bigoted against a lifestyle choice Paige Troller?

John N

So it all comes down to your claim that sexual orientation is a choice. Which has been refuted long time ago by science

And even if it was, it would be no more no less than your choice to follow a religion.

Except for the fact that your choice seems to require you to discriminate other people, so is harmful to society.

Anyhow, if you think it is a choice or not, you lose.

Oboehner

Refuted, LOL – just like the “gay gene” fraud? It is a choice.
My right to practice my religion is protected in the constitution, is sodomy?
By discrimination you mean targeting people and their businesses who disagree with your lifestyle CHOICE?

Anyhow, if you think it is not a choice, you lose.

John N

Refuted? You don’t mind showing me the scientific evidence for that? Because you’ve got no reason to lie about this, don’t you?

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is in most civilized countries forbidden by the law. If it is not the case where you live, you will risk being discriminated also for other reasons; in thar case maybe you better move.

Discrimation also means that business are not allowed to refuse servicing people based on their skin color, religion, sex or sexual orientation. Again, if that is the case, tomorrow they might to discriminate you because you are a christian.

Oboehner

“Refuted? You don’t mind showing me the scientific evidence for that?” The refuted claim was you own, find your own “scientific” evidence.
Since gay is a learned behavior and requires a choice to act upon it, make your “sexual orientation” arguments absurd.

John N

So you have no evidence for sexual orientation being a choice? That means you are bearing false witness, Oboehner. You know your god does’t like that. Take care, because eternal torture is awaiting you if you keep on lying.

Meanwhile, rational people accept the findings of science that sexual orientation is not a choice, but is caused by an interplay of genetic, hormonal an environmental influences. Only religious fundamentalists like yourself seem to have a problem with that; maybe because they are afraid they ‘chose’ wrong and are now stuck to that ‘choice’.

Oboehner

So you have no evidence for sexual orientation not being a choice? That means you have no argument.

BTW, if you are going to troll a Christian website, at least get a rudimentary knowledge before you make statements like “You know your god does’t like that” and look the fool.

Meanwhile, gullible people accept the claims of “science” that sexual orientation is not a choice, but is caused by an interplay of genetic, hormonal instead of mental problems and environmental influences. Only homosexuals like yourself seem to have a problem with simple fact. There was no new science when gay was removed from the APA list.

lizk

we are told mankind made some that way and some are by choice. You should read the Bible

John N

Your bible requires you to discriminate people? Some choice you made there.

TheKingOfRhye

You really think a “behavior choice” is the same thing as sexual orientation?

And “biological gender”?? “Sex” would be the word for that. I know you’re one of those who thinks they should correspond always, but at least realize the words don’t mean quite the same thing.

Oboehner

Two guys sodomizing each other is a behavior choice, not some kind of “by birth” nonsense.
Biological gender is more precise, and it is what it is, anything else is purely mental exactly like the chick who thinks she’s a cat, or the whack job who thinks he’s a 6 year old girl.

TheKingOfRhye

Still wrong….

Gender and sex just don’t mean the same exact thing (though the words are – incorrectly, I think – used interchangeably at times)

When we’re talking about transgender people and stuff like that, sex is the organs and chromosomes that one has, and gender the way one identifies, and acts and feels, and such. It’s why ‘transgender’ and ‘transsexual’ don’t mean exactly the same thing, for instance.

Also, you’re mixing up sexual activity and orientation. Sure, sexual activity is a choice, I don’t see how anyone could argue that it’s not. Sexual orientation is about who you’re attracted to. I guess the difference between people like you and people like me is that I think it’s fine for people to act on their sexual orientation, whatever it may be. (of course, as long as it’s legal, consensual, and so forth – just gotta get that in there before you try to say I should then have no problem with pedophilia, or rape, or something like that)

And you’re making a false dichotomy there, I think, in saying that it’s “behavior choice” versus “by birth.” Why does it have to be either one or the other, and nothing else?

Oboehner

I am exactly right, biological gender is more precise, and it is what it is, anything else is purely mental (the way one identifies, and acts and feels) exactly like the chick who thinks she’s a cat, or the whack job who thinks he’s a 6 year old girl. They may “feel” that way, but they are just disturbed.

Sexual “orientation” with the “of course, as long as it’s legal, consensual, and so forth” kicker – implies choice, behavior choice, not some kind of “by birth” nonsense. If you feel think it’s fine for people to act on their sexual orientation, whatever it may be (dead animals not withstanding) that’s fine and dandy – for you. Don’t expect me to even acknowledge it as anything other than a mental deviation.

“Why does it have to be either one or the other, and nothing else?” By birth entitles people who practice it to be entitled to all of the same allowances and acceptance as say race, behavior choice is just that and requires no such acceptance. That is precisely why militant gays are pushing for the “by birth” nonsense.

TheKingOfRhye

“By birth entitles people who practice it to be entitled to all of the
same allowances and acceptance as say race, behavior choice is just that and requires no such acceptance.”

Oh, okay, then…hmm. So, religion – which is not “by birth”, and is most certainly a behavior choice – shouldn’t be given any “allowances and acceptance”?

“Don’t expect me to even acknowledge it as anything other than a mental deviation.”

Personally, I don’t consider myself qualified to judge whether someone’s lifestyle or orientation is a “mental deviation” or not. I don’t have any psychiatric training or anything like that. Do you? Who are you to go around pronouncing whole groups of people “mental deviants” or whatever?

Oboehner

First Amendment, chief. So which amendment covers sexual perversion specifically?

TheKingOfRhye

So, hmm…..wait a minute now…

So, let me get this straight….you’re saying the First Amendment protects things like religion? That aren’t determined by birth? Wait, that would mean the government doesn’t use what you were born with as the only way of determining what should be protected from discrimination, wouldn’t it?

Oboehner

NOT things like religion, religion SPECIFICALLY. So which amendment covers sexual perversion specifically?

TheKingOfRhye

Things have to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution to be protected from discrimination and have laws that apply to them and such? Why do we have a 9th Amendment, then? Why have we had Civil Rights Acts?

Actually, wait a minute here…..I found it, it’s right here:

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.”

It doesn’t say “we can’t deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, unless we think they’re a pervert”, does it? Also, is it the government’s job to go around declaring people “sexual perverts”, when they’re not doing anything illegal?

lizk

God created all mankind and Adam and EVE we all came from so we are all related.

Paige Turner

Your opinion of what someones “lifestyle” is, is irrelevant much like your arguments and position.

Oboehner

Back atcha. Someone’s lifestyle choice is irrelevant and doesn’t fall into discrimination.

Paige Turner

I will make sure that I have my “Oboehnercare” all paid up in order to deal with this crushing burn you just delivered consisting of “I know I am but what are you”?

Good grief Man, get a life. No one chooses to be Gay or straight. If you believe otherwise you are truly beyond help.

Oboehner

Just like no one chooses to be a crack head, or whatever. If you believe otherwise you are truly beyond help.

Ronald Carter

You know, it’s really not that hard to read a psych text. So why don’t you?

Oboehner

Funny how the “psych text” states someone with an affinity for animals needs help but someone with the exact same desire for the same sex is somehow “born that way”.

Ronald Carter

The interesting thing about the slippery slope argument is that it was a disaster the first time someone used it, and it still IS a disaster.

I really wish I know why you guys struggle so hard with the concept of consent.

Oboehner

I’ll think about the consent thing when I am eating my steak – or will you struggle with that consent?
Your consent argument is the only disaster here, that and your mysterious “slippery slope” fabrication – I said no such thing.

Ronald Carter

You are seriously comparing eating an animal with having sex with one? And you DON’T see the slippery slope?

Allowing homosexuality to be legal has not caused the number of people who have sex with animals to increase, or brought out people urging the legalization of bestiality. An animal cannot consent therefore in the eyes of the law it is an act of abuse. Homosexuals can consent so everything you’re trying to say here is insane.

Oboehner

Which do you think the animal would prefer, being eaten or someone having sex with it?
Legality is irrelevant, like I said before – if slavery were still legal you would be supporting that.
Allowing homosexuality to become legal has brought the people urging the legalization of pedophilia (minor attracted persons) using the same methods as the gays did, BS psychology and political pressure.

Ronald Carter

Take your concerns up with the ASPCA then, a human being eating an animal has no more reason for remorse than a lion eating a gazelle. Either way it is unrelated. As a matter of fact, the ASPCA would not care if you ate a hamburger, but would likely be all over you for having sex with an animal.

Slavery is also an apples to oranges scenario, irrelevant to the subject of sexuality, and no I would not support it if it were legal because once AGAIN it is a matter of abuse and not one of consent.

Pedophilia will always be illegal because it hurts a non-consenting human being. Please tell me who gets hurt in a consenting homosexual relationship.

Oboehner

The ASPCA is irrelevant to this discussion. And like I said the consent thing holds no water when we kill and eat them.
It is not apples to oranges, you are just attempting to skirt the issue, you made the claim that because it was legal, it was right. Now you’re trying to back peddle without answering.
“Pedophilia will always be illegal” You couldn’t be more wrong, there has already been “studies” that attempted to show the sexual contact between minors and adults is not only not harmful but beneficial – like I said, they are riding the wake of the militant homosexuals who used the same playbook. Look how well it worked on you. Just Google “minor attracted persons” or B4Uact.

Ronald Carter

Well then, chowing down on animals is equally irrelevant to this discussion. It’s neither illegal nor immoral to be an omnivore. You still haven’t explained why two consenting adults – not children, not animals – should not be allowed to fall in love and have a loving relationship just like straight people. All you have are religious reasons.
Just because something wrong was legal once upon a time doesn’t mean we don’t learn from it. We don’t stay in those places. Which is why not allowing blacks to vote – your next irrelevant comparison, no doubt – is equally absurd. You haven’t stated exactly what you would like to see happen to homosexuals – do you want them jailed? Fined? Executed? You wouldn’t be the first Christian to state as much.

Pedophilia will always be illegal, no matter how many movements are in place to change that. Because it will always be considered an abuse of a child who cannot consent. So you think about that.

Oboehner

“Well then, chowing down on animals is equally irrelevant to this discussion” It’s all about the lame “consent” you keep crying about.
You can love someone, doesn’t mean you need to sodomize them. Calling a mutual mental problem a loving relationship? Hardly.

“Just because something wrong was legal once upon a time doesn’t mean we don’t learn from it. We don’t stay in those places.” Start learning. ” The whole point (which YOU brought up) was you claimed it was ok because it was legal, I am saying just because it is legal doesn’t make it right. “You haven’t stated exactly what you would like to see happen to homosexuals – do you want them jailed?” How about just not given carte blanche to force acceptance of their perversion at the expense of others and special rights. Sodomites are going to have their poop fetishes, don’t expect me to even acknowledge it let alone accept it.

“Pedophilia will always be illegal” Wrong again, it will, and ignorant bleeding hearts will be arguing in favor of it just like you are with another form of sexual deviance.

Ronald Carter

Two adults having sex consensually are not eating each other. In fact, you don’t even know for a fact that they’re engaging in your laundry list of “perverted” practices. You don’t know ANYTHING because it’s a private act behind closed doors. Which makes your protestation about it particularly strange. Maybe they’re just kissing each other. Who knows? Who cares?

“Start learning” – learning from who? Christian fundamentalists? Yes, I bet I’d “learn” a lot from someone who is tossing around phrases like “pervert” and “sexual deviant” and “tea bagger” and wants me to believe that it’s not deep loathing and hatred at work. If you want to educate me, start with actual facts. Sexual disease doesn’t just go after the gays and lesbians, even though you wish it would. It doesn’t discriminate. But if you’d think for just a second, you’d realize there is nothing that two gay people can do in the bedroom that a straight couple can’t also do. So their options are a little more limited.

“Sodomites” and “poop fetishes” – see the bit about “hatred” above. No amount of telling you is going to convince you that there are lots of gay men who don’t go for anal sex, just like straight couples. Some do, and some don’t, and you want to put them all in the same ill-fitting basket. It doesn’t work. And why do you have a problem accepting them? You don’t have to like them, and you don’t have to prevent them from EQUAL rights (you said special rights, which is wrong – they just want what everyone else gets, like the right to get married to the people they love). Do you even have the presence of mind to see that you’re attacking them entirely on what you IMAGINE they are doing in the bedroom?

Pedophilia will always be illegal. Guaranteed, 100%. It’s got nothing to do with bleeding hearts and anyone who wants to can try to legitimize it as a sexual preference, but it involves the innocent and will never NOT be considered the abusive act that it is.

Oboehner

“Two adults having sex consensually are not eating each other.” Never said they did, this just further demonstrated you total lack of discerning a simple point.
“because it’s a private act behind closed doors” Unless of course the are parading around demanding acceptance and ruining people’s lives if they don’t get it.
“they just want what everyone else gets, like the right to get married to the people they love).” They want to push it on other’s who are disgusted by their actions. Don’t confuse love with lust. They can do whatever they want, just keep it to themselves, don’t be targeting Christian business owners who want to have nothing to do with their mental depravity.
“learning from who?” How about someone who isn’t afraid to speak the truth no matter how many death threats they get from militant homos.

“Pedophilia will always be illegal. Guaranteed, 100%” Wrong yet again, that’s what they used to say about sodomy, the pedos are riding the wake – it’s only a matter of time.

Ronald Carter

“this just further demonstrated you total lack of discerning a simple point.” – what point? Eating animals is a terrible comparison to use. You need to find a better one.

I have never seen a homosexual “parading around” demanding anything or ruining anyone else’s life. Perhaps you could provide an example of what you’re talking about, keeping in mind of course that just as not all gay men engage in anal sex, not all gay men take part in pride parades.

“They want to push it on other’s who are disgusted by their actions. Don’t confuse love with lust.” – Getting married doesn’t involve other people, and if it was simply lust they’d just get it on in a bar or something and not make a commitment to a lifetime together in marriage.

No one targets Christian businesses. Those businesses simply have to follow the law, that’s all.

Freedom of Religion covers:
– Going to the house of worship of your choice
– Practicing the religion of your choice in your home
– Community activities, outreach and charity
– Public preaching
– Choosing not to participate in religion at all.

It does NOT cover:
– Dictating civil law based on religion
– Using religion as an exemption from civil laws you don’t like
– Using religion to deny other people’s civil rights under civil law
– Using religion as a shield from criticism

Denying religion the right to dictate to everyone does NOT constitute “oppression”.

“Militant homos” – just more boorish and hateful language from you, and a completely subjective use of the word “truth”.

Pedophilia will always be illegal, because everyone INCLUDING gay and lesbian people will never let the abuse of innocent children take place. Not going to happen. Ever.

Oboehner

“what point?” Get back to me when you figure it out.

Ronald Carter

I know what point you THINK you’re making. You’re just not making it very well.

Oboehner

Freedom of religion covers the fact that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Period.
Pedophilia will be just as legal as sodomy.
“In a move toward destigmatizing pedophilia, the American Psychiatric Association states not all pedophiles have mental disorder, in new DSM” November 1st 2013
It’s already started, wait and see you’ll be defending them next.

Ronald Carter

“Pedophilia will be just as legal as sodomy.”

I guess you just don’t believe that most human beings would never allow that to happen, including atheists and homosexuals themselves. It’s a strange opinion to have, but one you are entitled to.

No Oboehner. I don’t defend the abuse of the innocent, legal or not.

Oboehner

Didn’t read the part about the APA then I take it, nor did you look to see what B4UAct is all bout either.

Ronald Carter

The APA might question whether pedophilia is a mental disorder, that does not mean they’re going to push to make it legal. No one would do that. Reading comprehension requires just a little bit more effort than that.

I don’t know what B4UAct is all about nor do I need to. If they’re anything like NAMBLA they are an organization that is pushing for something society is never going to allow them. There are groups of fundamentalist Christian pastors who are calling for the death penalty for homosexuals too. Think anyone’s going to take them seriously either?

Oboehner

If you would bother to look at the facts instead of just making yourself look ignorant, you would see that NAMBLA and B4UAct are different, B4UAct is following the gay playbook and working toward societal acceptance.
Riding the wake, then you can defend that too.

Ronald Carter

“B4U-ACT, a support group aimed at preventing pedophiles from acting on their attraction to children.”

If that’s what they are, why are you opposed to them?

Oboehner

At a conference put on by B4UACT, Keynote speaker Dr. Fred Berlin of Johns Hopkins University stated that pedophiles are “unfairly stigmatized and demonized” by society, children “are not inherently unable to consent” to sex with an adult and an adult’s desire to have sex with children is “normative.” Is that why you stand by them?

Ronald Carter

Stand by them? I’ve never even heard of them. But you refuse to shut up about them, so I went online to see that they are apparently a group of people who try to prevent acts of pedophilia abuse from happening to children. Am I supposed to be upset with them for that? Is that your issue?

Oboehner

“I’ve never even heard of them… they are apparently a group of people who try to prevent acts of pedophilia.” Apparently not.

Ronald Carter

Well it doesn’t matter anyway. If their mission is to stop people from acting on having sex with children then I would support them. If they are encouraging sex with children, then I find them abhorrent and don’t support them.

TheKingOfRhye

I never heard of them either. I must have missed the meeting in which they were added to the official LGBT/liberal/destroy-America agenda.

Oboehner

“If they are encouraging sex with children, then I find them abhorrent and don’t support them.” Come now, when “science” says it’s ok, you’ll be on the band wagon.

Ronald Carter

So that’s what you’re reduced to now, since you haven’t got facts on your side…telling me what I’d do when you don’t know the first thing about me. LOL.

Science would never say pedophilia is “OK”, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they found that attraction to children occurred naturally. And again, since you don’t understand what consent is, you can’t possibly understand that it will ALWAYS be an act of abuse to have sex with a minor no matter what any organization has to say about it. This must be why you keep comparing homosexuality to pedophilia – you can’t bear the fact that two adults of the same sex might be in a loving consensual relationship involving sex where no one is being abused.

Oboehner

I know you well, you blindly follow popular opinion without question. Whatever tidbit of BS gets tossed out, like a lemming, you march. Then you live in denial of that which is plainly in front of your face. Take the legalization of pedophilia (or minor attraction, or intergenerational, or whatever nice sounding label gets slapped on it), they are using the gay playbook, and yes “science WILL say it’s ok – only a matter of time, yet you refuse to look at it but merely speak out of ignorance.

Ronald Carter

When you accept science you’re not dealing with ANYONE’s “opinion”. You fail at this over and over and over.

And you’ve missed my point about pedophilia for the umpteenth time too. You say “gay playbook” conveniently blurring the lines of pedophilia and homosexuality like you love to do so much, and then take a stab in the dark that science is going to OK it. Guess what? That’s not going to happen. The most science would ever do is say that pedophiles cannot help or control their feelings (maybe but I doubt it). But even if they did, they would still ALWAYS recognize that children need to be protected because they are unable to consent. You’re not going to win this one with slippery slope arguments and impossible “what if’ scenarios.

gizmo23

When Christians boycott it’s called standing up for God, when other do it it is called indoctrination

acontraryview

It would only be discrimination of they allowed travel to other states with such laws, but not Mississippi. You would benefit from a better understanding of what the word “discrimination” means.

AndrewDowling

If they get boycotted, at least the rates of HIV and other STDs will decline.

gizmo23

Then the hetros of the state can get back to having the highest teen out of wedlock birth rate

Oboehner

Lame, sodomites can’t impregnate each other – try again.

Ronald Carter

“Sodomites”. Not very classy. Can you find a word less loaded with bigotry?

Amos Moses

Probably, but a lot less truthful…….

Ronald Carter

That’s a loaded and hateful word and completely inappropriate in any situation.

Amos Moses

Sodomite— an inhabitant of the city of Sodom….and it is appropriate on a christian forum and it is in the bible:

Deu 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

acontraryview

Actually, sodomite refers to anyone who engages in any sexual act other than penile/vaginal. Most sexually active heterosexuals are sodomites.

Amos Moses

Like many words, it has more than one meaning…………so what?

acontraryview

Well, according to you, a Sodomite is an inhabitant of the city of Sodom. Since Sodom doesn’t exist, then there are no Sodomites, are there?

Amos Moses

There are those who are Sodomites even though it does not exist any longer…. They believe as they did………

Ronald Carter

Right, so we’re talking about people attracted tot he same sex and you’re talking about inhabitants of the city of Sodom. Bring yourself up to date by a couple milliennia, maybe.

Amos Moses

Is it talking about homosexuals,,,,,,,,, sure,,,,, again,,,, so what?

Ronald Carter

A “sodomite” would be someone who practices sodomy, which could easily be, and often is, a straight couple. So to use that word is inaccurate when you mean to talk about two people of the same sex attracted to one another.

Amos Moses

Does it apply to straights….. yeah, sure….. but mostly not. So it is accurate………. for most all homosexuals.

“Attracted” to WHAT of the other person?

Ronald Carter

Considering half the homosexual population is lesbian, are you sure you STILL want to use the word “sodomites”? How often do you think lesbians practice sodomy?

Amos Moses

All the time, it is not strictly anal sex… but is it your position that they do not……..ever? Any and all sex outside of a marriage (homosexual “marriage” is not a marriage) is a sin……….so it really does not matter….. sin is sin.

Ronald Carter

Well, now, you’re just using the rules of your church. They don’t apply in the real world. In the eyes of the law, homosexual marriage is legal. If your church doesn’t consider it to be, it has no bearing on anything in the eyes of the law. Sin is whatever your church deems it to be – irrespective of the law.

Amos Moses

No, it is not just a church rule………….and to say the church does not apply to the real world is to deny reality. God enforces his law independent of mans law or even that of any church. Murder is a violation of Gods law…. but whether man enforces it or not…. God will see to it that it is enforced.

Ronald Carter

Given the number of churches who believe they speak for God, you can see why many reasonable people would choose to NOT believe a religion that taught such a thing. In the real world as we know it, there are homosexuals. They fall in love exactly the same way everyone else does. We know from years of study on the subject that it’s a regular variation in sexuality and not a sin. And any God who would create people that way only to punish them for it is not worthy of worship.

Amos Moses

None of them speak for God, God has spoken for Himself.

” They fall in love exactly the same way everyone else does. We know from years of study on the subject that it’s a regular variation in sexuality and not a sin. And any God who would create people that way only to punish them for it is not worthy of worship.”

No, they do not, No, they are not and it seems your disagreement is with Him. Have fun with shaking your fist at Him.

Ronald Carter

I’m not shaking my fist at him.
I’m disagreeing with you.

I don’t think you represent God, although I can see that you believe you do.

Amos Moses

No, you are upset that there are rules to be followed and you do not like who set the rules nor do you like even being told there are rules.

Ronald Carter

No, what I don’t like is the rules themselves if they are daft and unreasonable. I have no problem with a religion telling people to love one another, for example. But not to hate people based on their sexuality.

Amos Moses

“No, what I don’t like is the rules themselves if they are daft and unreasonable.”

No, you just don’t like being told that certain things are unacceptable despite the fact you know them to be wrong. You are lawless.

Ronald Carter

I don’t like being told that certain things are unacceptable from people whose opinions are formed based on bigotry and hatred masquerading as faith. You are not God, and God would not proclaim hatred.

Amos Moses

And who has decided it is bigotry and if that is you are you then not forcing YOUR will on others and abusing them? Why or why not?

Ronald Carter

Simple, I DON’T force my will on others, unless I need to intervene in an act of violence or abuse.

Amos Moses

And now YOU are a liar because that is EXACTLY what you want to do with christians. You want to enforce what you think is right, your will, on others that disagree with you.

Ronald Carter

No I don’t. You can believe what you like. But if you try to sell it to me, don’t expect me to take it.

Amos Moses

Don’t have to sell the truth…. just speak it. You are here to do just what was said….. to impose your idea of what is right on christians. And you still have not answered the questions.

So what is your plan to stop that from happening if, as you say, you cannot enforce your will on another and to do so is “bigotry”?

The thief does not agree with that…… so you are forcing your will on another. The murderer does not agree with that ……….so you are forcing your will on another.
The pedophile does not agree with that so you are forcing your will on another.
On what basis do you make those judgments of anothers action? What kind of a bigot are you?

And sorry, what does consent have to do with it? That is just age discrimination and that makes you a bigot, does it not? And who made the rule that children cannot consent? You? Who EXACTLY made that rule? Because i will guarantee you the pedophile DOES NOT agree that children are incapable of consent. And again, how is that NOT enforcing someones will on another? That is what you said was the standard, was it not?

So you really have no answers…. and you say “But if you try to sell it to me, don’t expect me to take it.” but you are here pontificating as to who is a “bigot” and whatever…… but you want us to buy your trash.

Get real. But try getting some answers to some basic questions first. You seem to have a real lack of any.

Ronald Carter

And like most Christians, you talk about truth as though you have a monopoly on it. Which must mean that you’re right and everyone else is wrong, correct? Last time I counted there were over 40,000 denominations of Christianity after all.

I don’t plan to stop anything at all unless someone feels the brand of religion they have learned is somehow superior to all the rest and they’re going to take it upon themselves to break the law or do something to undermine everyone else. Then I will speak up.

The thief, the murderer, the pedophile – they can disagree all they like. But if they act on any of their crimes, they’re breaking the law. That isn’t enforcing my will. That’s just the law.

On what basis do I make those judgements? Based on the fact that they are both immoral (enforcing their will on unwilling parties) and based on the fact that those actions are all illegal. You think that’s tantamount to bigotry? Those laws are in place for a reason.

Consent isn’t age discrimination. Consent means you’re an adult and responsible for your actions and are not doing anything against your will. It doesn’t matter whether the pedophile agrees or not, the law is the law, and abuse of a minor is abuse of a minor.

So you see? Everything answered. It’s really just the golden rule, and it’s as correct as it ever was. Don’t do things to people you don’t want done to yourself. Meaning you shouldn’t be using your religion to tell other people they’re sinners or deviants if you don’t want other religions doing the same to you.

Amos Moses

They have a monopoly on it when the other side is bankrupt.

Ronald Carter

Too bad that’s just a matter of opinion. There are lots of things I consider bankrupt about your beliefs, too.

Amos Moses

And guess what, that is ALL you have, your OPINION. Your beliefs are just your opinion, that if no one is being hurt, then it is ok. It is based on NOTHING of any value except that is the way you think it should be, and if someone disagrees with your idea, they are a “bigot”.

But you say we cannot “force our beliefs” on anyone…….and that is EXACTLY what you are doing. You also say, that somehow, consent is involved, but you cannot answer any question about when someone does not consent to your opinion of consent.

You have no basis to make ANY value judgment of anothers behavior except that you think it is wrong………….

Ronald Carter

No, sir, I’m not forcing my beliefs on you. I’m just not allowing you to force yours on me. It’s not your place to tell me that I’m going to burn in hell when you are not God. You don’t like that, obviously. I do not accept your teachings and fully reject them and believe them to be false. I have the right to do that.

We are not discussing my “opinion” of consent. We’re talking about the law. And because homosexual relationships are consensual, there is no basis by which it should be illegal. I don’t know why you struggle with this very basic concept and keep trying to compare them to things which are very much NOT consensual, like murder and pedophilia.

Amos Moses

And it is STILL sin…..

Ronald Carter

That depends on what religion you choose to follow. Or, none at all.

Amos Moses

No, it does not…………………

Ronald Carter

Sin is a construct of the church. It is an arbitrary thing – what you call a sin another person might consider a virtue.

Amos Moses

No, it is not….. sin is a violation of law…… and that violation leads to death… church or no church.

“what you call a sin another person might consider a virtue.”

And they would be wrong………….

Ronald Carter

No, if sin was a violation of law, it would be punishable by law Homosexuality is a perfect example. Even though your church tells you to call it a sin, the law doesn’t consider it to be.

Sin is whatever your church deems it to be, using its own authority (but often pointing to the Bible).

Amos Moses

No, it is a violation of Gods law and he enforces it in his way…. man may or may not…. that does not nullify Gods law and its enforcement.

Ronald Carter

“God’s law” is not yours to know. Every church claims to understand it and they all understand it differently. and some churches are perfectly OK with homosexuals and homosexuality.

Amos Moses

Gods law is known by everyone…….. Not much to understand…..it is quite explicit.

“and some churches are perfectly OK with homosexuals and homosexuality.”

And they are WRONG.

Ronald Carter

That is merely the opinion of you, given to you by your church. I believe you to be wrong.

Amos Moses

So you are saying you do not know that murder is wrong…. or that theft is wrong…. or that other such crimes are wrong.

Ronald Carter

Why is a church required to know such things are wrong?

Amos Moses

Did not say it was…. you know when things are wrong. So tell me how that is.

Ronald Carter

Treat others as you would want to be treated. Don’t enforce you will on others as that is abuse. Pretty simple really.

Amos Moses

So the pedophilie just wants to be treated as you want to be treated. He does not want you to force your will on him.

Is it that simple? Is pedophilia wrong? Why or why not? Who gets to decide? Him? You? If it is you, are you then not forcing your will on him? Why or why not?

Does the government not force its will on people when they violate the speed limit?

Ronald Carter

It’s astounding, I have YET to meet a Christian fundamentalist who can grasp the concept of consent.

Pedophilia – an act of abuse, since a child cannot legally consent.
Murder (since so many of you also try to make this comparison) – an act of abuse. Obviously.
Theft – an act of abuse.
Homosexuality – consensual and not an act of abuse.

The government has the right to enforce the law. The church does not, at least not outside of the confines of its walls.

Amos Moses

” I have YET to meet a Christian fundamentalist who can grasp the concept of consent.”

We understand the concept just fine. But the homosexuals and trannys have erased the line. So we now no longer know where the line is.

And sorry, what does consent have to do with it? That is just age discrimination and that makes you a bigot, does it not? And who made the rule that children cannot consent? You? Who EXACTLY made that rule? Because i will guarantee you the pedophile DOES NOT agree that children are incapable of consent. And again, how is that NOT enforcing someones will on another? That is what you said was the standard, was it not?

Ronald Carter

Are homosexuals and the transgendered affecting your lives in any detrimental way?

The opinions of lawbreakers, especially those who hurt innocent people, are of no consequence. That’s not bigotry, that’s protection of the innocent.

Amos Moses

“The opinions of lawbreakers, especially those who hurt innocent people, are of no consequence. That’s not bigotry, that’s protection of the innocent.”

Based on what? Who says they are lawbreakers and who are you to impose your idea of right and wrong on anyone? Sorry, you don’t get to have it both ways. They do not consent to your definition of right and wrong. That is bigotry, when you demand that certain behaviors, that you do not agree with, be suppressed.

So again, i ask, what does consent have to do with it?

Ronald Carter

What do you mean, based on what? I already told you that. Based on the law and the fact that these are abuses of innocent and non-consenting parties. They are lawbreakers because we have laws in place forbidding pedophilia, theft and murder. I don’t have the slightest idea what you aren’t understanding here.

Consent means no one’s being abused, there is no one having something done to them against their will. Unlike all the other scenarios we have been talking about like pedophilia.

Amos Moses

“What do you mean, based on what? I already told you that. Based on the law and the fact that these are abuses of innocent and non-consenting parties. ”

And WHO determines that? BASED ON WHAT?

Again, If someone is committing suicide, or a murder suicide, with consent, does that make it ok in your eyes? Would you stand by and watch, take out your cell phone and take pictures or video, or would you call 911?

If pedophilia was legal, would it be ok? Why or why not?

Ronald Carter

“And WHO determines that? BASED ON WHAT?”

I’ve answered that already. I keep saying based on the law and you keep saying BASED ON WHAT? The answer is the law. Are you going to ask me BASED ON WHAT again? The answer is “THE LAW”. And the law does not recognize any abuse in homosexual relationships because they are consensual. Why, oh why, are you making me repeat myself over and over? It’s so simple a child could understand it.

Suicide is a person not in control of themselves doing something self-destructive, so no, that’s not consensual. But it’s a ridiculous comparison – someone killing themselves has nothing to do with a homosexual union.

“If pedophilia was legal, would it be ok? Why or why not?”

Are you trying to drive me crazy on purpose? NO, of course not, because IT IS AN ACT OF ABUSE ON AN INNOCENT. A child CANNOT CONSENT.

Amos Moses

“The answer is the law.”

SO AGAIN, Again, If someone is committing suicide, or a murder suicide, with consent, does that make it ok in your eyes? Would you stand by and watch, take out your cell phone and take pictures or video, or would you call 911?

If pedophilia was legal, would it be ok? Why or why not?

“NO, of course not, because IT IS AN ACT OF ABUSE ON AN INNOCENT. A child CANNOT CONSENT.”

And if it was “legal” is it then ok? YES OR NO AND BASED ON WHAT? “On the law???” IT WOULD BE LEGAL.

Homosexuality used to be ILLEGAL…… the law changed….. WHAT BASIS do you have to say that it would remain so…..BASED ON WHAT? Consent is NOT an answer…… Abuse is NOT an answer….IT WOULD BE LEGAL!!!!!!!!!

Ronald Carter

“SO AGAIN, Again, If someone is committing suicide, or a murder suicide, with consent, does that make it ok in your eyes? Would you stand by and watch, take out your cell phone and take pictures or video, or would you call 911?”

How many times are you going to ask me the same question? Do you want my copy/paste yet again?

“Homosexuality used to be ILLEGAL…… the law changed….. WHAT BASIS do you have to say that it would remain so…..BASED ON WHAT? Consent is NOT an answer…… Abuse is NOT an answer….IT WOULD BE
LEGAL!!!!!!!!!”

As I stated earlier, you have difficulty with the concept of consent. It is the answer whether you like it or not – they are not doing anything that constitutes an abuse towards one another, any act between them is consensual. So even if it were illegal, no one is being abused.

Amos Moses

“How many times are you going to ask me the same question?”

Until you can answer the question because you are going to great lengths to not answer it or your answer is not adequate.

“As I stated earlier, you have difficulty with the concept of consent”

No, the problem is that your concept does NOT answer very specific questions. Such as, if pedophilia is legalized, then, by reason of the FACT that it became LEGAL, it has to be assumed that CHILDREN can IN FACT give CONSENT.

So answer the question…………….. IF IT BECAME LEGAL…………….would you support it?

If your answer is NO…………… then you are a liar OR your position is FALSE.

WHICH IS IT?

Ronald Carter

“Until you can answer the question because you are going to great lengths to not answer it or your answer is not adequate.”
And when you didn’t get ice cream as a child, did you stomp your feet until you got some? That doesn’t work with me. If you don’t like the answer, ask a different question. The answer I gave you is the answer I have.
“if pedophilia is legalized, then, by reason of the FACT that it became LEGAL, it has to be assumed that CHILDREN can IN FACT give CONSENT.”
No because you said yourself just because something is the law doesn’t make it right. As it happens, you’re suggesting that pedophilia could become legal which is completely absurd in every respect because no one’s going to legalize child abuse. And if they ever did, people would be up in arms about it, quite rightly. But I don’t even like entertaining the question because your comparing homosexuality to these obvious human rights abuses is offensive in the extreme.
“So answer the question…………….. IF IT BECAME LEGAL…………….would you support it?”
I already told you no, several times. And I am not a liar. They have ages of consent in every country for very good reasons.

Amos Moses

So your position is false…………

Ronald Carter

No, you simply fail to accept it.

Amos Moses

i fail to accept it………….because it is a lie and FALSE.

Amos Moses

So is this ok because they “consent”…………

‘This Is Not Incest’: Colorado Man Leaves Wife for Sexual Relationship With Mother

An Colorado man who found his biological mother three years ago after being put up for adoption as a child has left his wife to marry his mother and have children together.…

Ronald Carter

That is bizarre and sickening but they are consenting adults so it’s none of my business.

Amos Moses

They have NO consent to give…..just as the thief has no consent to give.

Ronald Carter

If they are adults and not hurting anyone or breaking any laws, then yes, they can give consent.

Amos Moses

So you are amoral?

Ronald Carter

Did I say I approved? No, I said I found it sickening.

Amos Moses

But you think it is okay for them…………thus you are amoral….

Ronald Carter

Define “okay”. I find it revolting but it isn’t my place to tell consenting adults how to live their lives. Apparently you think it is yours.

Amos Moses

You are so revolted…….but you dare not oppose it….. because you are afraid, a coward……….that you will be labeled a “bigot”……..so you choose to be amoral…..and call others “bigots” …… so my observation is………….you are not revolted at all…….. or you are a liar……….. the difference is negligible……….

Ronald Carter

If I got involved in the private life of every freak out there I would have no time to live my own life. The difference is I know how to mind my own business. You don’t, Amos. You live your life demanding that everyone follow the rules of your tyrannical religion. I am not going to be ruled by hate.

Amos Moses

So you are not really revolted enough to do anything about it………..so amoral……. so not really revolted at all……… just a pervert supporter and afraid to do the right thing……. Go it.

Ronald Carter

What do you want me to do? Drive 10 thousand miles to some stranger to tell him he’s a sick pervert? How could I stop him from doing what he is doing anyway? How could YOU? Are you not a hypocrite?

Amos Moses

To oppose evil anywhere is to oppose evil everywhere.

Ronald Carter

I suspect your definition of “evil” is a lot more extensive and, shall we say, creative than mine.

Amos Moses

And yet, still, you cannot find it in yourself to oppose it………..

Ronald Carter

Hm. Pretty sure I said I DID oppose it. What, not strenuously enough for your liking? You want me to wave a Bible in their faces or something?

Amos Moses

Yeah, just not enough to do anything about it….. So not so much……….

Ronald Carter

What are you doing about it?

Amos Moses

Pedophile relationships in the Netherlands: Alternative lifestyle for children?

Abstract

The experiences and perceptions of 25 boys in on-going relationships with pedophiles in the Netherlands were studied using a semi-structured interview technique. Areas of personal significance or value to the boys, including the pedophile relationship, the pedophile himself, and the sexual contact, were investigated for their emotional meaning and salience. The older partner and pedophile relationship were found to be significant but not overly important aspects of the boys’ experiences. The partner and relationship, including sexual aspects, were experienced in predominately positive terms; evidence of exploitation or misuse was absent. Implications of findings from this convenience sample are discussed in terms of research and social policy.

Ronald Carter

Still irrelevant. And if the Netherlands made pedophilia legal the rest of the world would be after them for human rights abuses. Not going to happen and still irrelevant to the subject of consensual homosexuality.

Amos Moses

“Murder (since so many of you also try to make this comparison) – an act of abuse. Obviously.

Theft – an act of abuse.”

The thief does not agree with that…… so you are forcing your will on another. The murderer does not agree with that ……….so you are forcing your will on another.
The pedophile does not agree with that so you are forcing your will on another.

On what basis do you make those judgments of anothers action? What kind of a bigot are you?

Ronald Carter

Murder, theft, pedophilia – all illegal, and the result of one person forcing their will on an unwilling party.

Homosexuality – legal and consensual.

Please tell me what you’re struggling with here and how upholding laws protecting innocent people constitutes being a “bigot”.

Amos Moses

“Murder, theft, pedophilia – all illegal, and the result of one person forcing their will on an unwilling party.”

“Homosexuality – legal and consensual.”

According to whom? BASED ON WHAT?

Who says they are unwilling, that is a value judgment. Who are you to impose your judgment on them? Again, what does that, consent, have to do with it?

Ronald Carter

According to whom? To EVERYONE! Do you think someone calls the police the second two gay people engage in sex? Based on what? Based on the fact that no one’s being hurt and no laws are being broken!

If they were unwilling, it would be an act of rape and they could report it. Right? What does that have to do with my judgment or anyone else’s? Two adult gay people who want to have sex may do so and no one is being abused or hurt or taken advantage of. That is consent. So what’s so hard to understand here? I really want to know.

Amos Moses

“Do you think someone calls the police the second two gay people engage in sex? Based on what?”

Yes, two people are being hurt, the two involved. If someone is committing suicide, or a murder suicide, with consent, does that make it ok in your eyes? Would you stand by and watch, take out your cell phone and take pictures or video, or would you call 911?

If pedophilia was legal, would it be ok? Why or why not?

Ronald Carter

“Yes, two people are being hurt, the two involved.”

How are they being hurt?

I answered your other questions already, several times.

Amos Moses

No, you did not answer some very ponted questions…….to wit…

If someone is committing suicide, or a murder suicide, with consent, does that make it ok in your eyes? Would you stand by and watch, take out your cell phone and take pictures or video, or would you call 911?

If pedophilia was legal, would it be ok? Why or why not?

“Yes, two people are being hurt, the two involved.”
“How are they being hurt?”

Homosexual activity takes a toll on their lives. Drug abuse, suicide, HIV/AIDS and other diseases, and the list goes on…. they die 20-35 years earlier due to that choice.

Ronald Carter

I answered your questions. Here is a copy/paste of the answers I gave you so you don’t have to ask again:

“Suicide is a person not in control of themselves doing something self-destructive, so no, that’s not consensual. But it’s a ridiculous comparison – someone killing themselves has nothing to do with a homosexual union.

“If pedophilia was legal, would it be ok? Why or why not?”

Are you trying to drive me crazy on purpose? NO, of course not, because IT IS AN ACT OF ABUSE ON AN INNOCENT. A child CANNOT CONSENT.”

Drug abuse, suicide, HIV/AIDS etc., also affect straight people and people of other demographics. That is a worthless statement.

Amos Moses

“Are you trying to drive me crazy on purpose? ”

It is a short drive…given your answers……….that really fail to grasp many realities.

Ronald Carter

Don’t be upset with me because I understand the concept of consent and you do not. Or that homosexuality does not constitute the abuse of another human being like pedophilia, rape and murder do.

Amos Moses

Not All Pedophiles Have Mental Disorder, American Psychiatric …

1 Nov 2013 … In a move toward destigmatizing pedophilia, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in its updated Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of …

Ronald Carter

Your point is what? That they’re going to say “Oh OK, go be pedophiles and abuse children”?

Even if they find that people can’t help being sexually attracted to children, they still are not going to permit it because a child is innocent.

Amos Moses

Excerpted from the Northern Colorado Gazette:

Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.

“Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

B4U-Act calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”

In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”

Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”

Ronald Carter

Irrelevant, no one is going to allow the abuse of children to take place.

Amos Moses

“”Suicide is a person not in control of themselves doing something self-destructive, so no, that’s not consensual. ”

And how do you come to that conclusion…… certain states have LEGALIZED it. Washington state has state sanctioned physician assisted suicide……….. So it is with CONSENT. You are forcing your idea of right and wrong on them….. what does that do to your position?

WHAT DOES THEIR CONSENT HAVE TO DO WITH IT? Consent is a FALSE paradygm.

Ronald Carter

You’re talking about a very specific kind of suicide, euthanasia. Nice try. In that case those people are going to die drawn out and painful deaths so it is a way of releasing them in a quicker and more humane way to spare them unnecessary pain. It is a compassion thing so I don’t expect you to understand it.

And once again – look what you’re doing. Comparing suicide to homosexuality. That kind of stretch is so off the wall practically nobody would take you seriously for making it.

Amos Moses

Suicide is suicide………….what does it matter the method? It does not and your position is false.

Amos Moses

Physician-assisted suicide. … Legal in Montana, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Bernalillo … The court left the matter of the constitutionality of a right to a physician’s aid in dying to the states.

Ronald Carter

Your point is what?

Amos Moses

It is or can be with CONSENT………..so your position is false.

Ronald Carter

No, you are talking about euthanasia, not standard suicide of regular otherwise healthy people. You should stop being dishonest.

ShemSilber

Yes, sir, Brother Amos. It is consent, all right, but consent to do evil. But those who are ensnared by homosexuality will defend their position till they’re blue in the face, even those who know that the Scriptures strongly condemn it. We can witness to them about the need to change, but it will take strong correction from our Master Yahushua (Lord Jesus) to cleanse them of it. As the Apostle Paul says in 1Corinthians 6:9-11: “…and such WERE some of you, but you were WASHED…” In other words, he counseled some and they were cleaned up and changed from this abomination through the atoning blood of the Messiah, our Redeemer. HalleluYAH, for He would much rather save even the worst of us for LIFE than to send us to die the second death. Praise Him for His patience with us, in Yahushua’s Name, omein.

TheKingOfRhye

“”Homosexuality – legal and consensual.”

According to whom? BASED ON WHAT?”

You really have to ask that question? Wow. Legal according to the fact that I’m pretty sure that no states in the country enforce any sort of “anti-sodomy laws.” that’s “BASED ON WHAT.”

Amos Moses

So “legal”……that is the standard…… is that right?

TheKingOfRhye

You were asking what saying it is legal and consensual is based on and who it’s legal and consensual according to. Or am I misunderstanding you again?

I guess when it comes down to it, the ‘consensual’ part is the standard I go by.

Amos Moses

So whose law makes that legal? Based on what? So if a person is on the street, and going to kill them selves, and they have given consent, then you are fine with it? Are you going to call 911 to stop it or take out your cell phone and record it? Do you have any responsibility to stop it? If a mother is on the street and is going to abort her child right there,,,, with consent,,, you are good with that? What if it is a murder suicide…. with consent?

If consent is the standard,,,,,,,,, based on what,,, when did this become the standard and where does any authority derive for it to be enforced?

honeymonster

Homosexuality – the result of a few persons forcing their will on many unwilling parties.

Ronald Carter

In much the same way heterosexuality is. In other words, not at all. Two people in love – number of unwilling parties: zero.

Amos Moses

In Rome, during the Roman Empire, women and children were considered chattel, it made no difference if they consented or not. They not only were too young or the wrong sex, their consent was absolutely irrelevant as a matter of law.

So what is your plan to stop that from happening if, as you say, you cannot enforce your will on another and to do so is “bigotry”?

Ronald Carter

Do you think something that dates back to the Roman Empire is a good example to use in the year 2016?

Amos Moses

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

Ronald Carter

That’s what they say.

AndrewDowling

Anyone forcing you to read this thread?

Sounds like you have serious issues with free speech.

Ronald Carter

No, I have issues with hate.

Paige Turner

Ignore Oboehner. He uses words from the 18th century where he lives and thinks he is clever. He is obsessed with gay sex.

AndrewDowling

Don’t read threads that upset you. Plenty of gay blogs on the web.

Ronald Carter

The thread is fine. And I’m not gay, I just don’t like to see gay people attacked by the religious.

Oboehner

Sodomizing another man isn’t very “classy”.

Ronald Carter

You do realize that straight people do it too?
Anyway it’s not like they have the same options.

Oboehner

Not very classy when anyone does it.

Ronald Carter

And yet it’s the word you use when you mean to say homosexual. I would suggest you need to find another word, because in addition to being offensive, it’s inaccurate.

Oboehner

No I mean to say sodomite, and in the case of gay men highly accurate. Homosexuality is offensive, yet you champion that.

Ronald Carter

There is nothing offensive about homosexuality. If you find it offensive, don’t be homosexual. But it’s not illegal to be homosexual, and none of your business if someone else is. Sodomite is a ridiculous word unless you are talking solely about people who practice sodomy, and many straight people do, and many gay men do not. This is why you need to find another word.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

Sodomy used to be illegal in USA, until the vote-pandering liberal Blue States started abolishing anti-sodomy laws in the 1970s, …….ie after the liberal Blue States had pandered to the Blacks by abolishing Jim Crow laws n enacting the pro-Black 1964 Civil Rights Act n 1965 Voting Rights Act. Then the liberal Blue States pandered to the Hispanics by giving them sanctuary cities to protect their mostly Mexican illegal immigrants n even gave them US citizenship with the 1986 Dream Act.
…….That was how JFK won the 1960 election n how the liberal Democrats n Rinos from the Blue States hv won most US Federal elections.

Ronald Carter

So those for you would be “the good old days”?

They said the same thing about giving women and blacks the right to vote, remember?

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

Is nowadays’ US$19 trillion national debt, high crime rate, low-depressed wages n high STD/HIV rate from sexual promiscuity “the good old days”.?

Ronald Carter

Sexual promiscuity is the fault of homosexuals, is that what you’re saying?

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

No, sexual promiscuity is the fault of the vote-pandering liberal Blue States, who had also began to abolish anti-adultery laws in the 1960s n then enact pro-feminists divorce laws.

Oboehner

When it was legal to own slaves I’ll bet you would have been defending that too.
Sodomy, tea bagging, and homosexuality are hand in hand. The activities of homosexuals are disgusting.
I really don’t know why you feel you must bring up “many straight people do” I’m not defending that either, thus irrelevant. Another laughable point is “they are attracted to the same sex”, the vast majority of gay men are just attracted to “getting off” no matter how or with whom. I have seen many gay “couples” and one is almost always playing the female role and the other the male – take Ellen dressing in men’s clothes. It’s nothing more than acting on a mental problem.

Ronald Carter

You just don’t understand consent. Slavery is abuse. Get it yet? So no, I would never have supported it.

I’m sure to homosexuals, the acts of heterosexuals are disgusting too, but so what? This is your basis for discrimination?

Tell me why you’re making the act of sodomy all about homosexuals then if you think it’s unacceptable in straight people too, then. If you’re so opposed to the practice why do you say nothing to the heterosexual couples practicing it?

And no, homosexual men are exactly the same as straight men. For every one wanting a quick hookup there is probably another who wants love and companionship like anyone else.

Not touching the ridiculous “Ellen” stereotype you posted. Outdated thinking and preposterous.

Oboehner

Consent is not the issue, it is the legality which YOU brought up. Gay sex is abuse to all parties involved.

Now your hypocrisy is showing, forcing people to accept sodomy because it is legal, yet disagreeing with something else that is (or was).

“Tell me why you’re making the act of sodomy all about homosexuals” Because that and putting ones mouth on another’s receptacle for bodily waste, are all that gay men have available – their only way of having sex.
Now yet again you are attempting to add something I don’t condone either as some kind of justification for your brand of perversion. Sorry that’s a fail. “And no, homosexual men are exactly the same as straight men” Not even close, gay male promiscuity leaves heteros in the dust.
“Not touching the ridiculous “Ellen” stereotype you posted.” because you can’t, you’d get burned. there is nothing stereotypical about it – butch hair, men’s clothing and all.

Ronald Carter

Gay sex is not abuse by any definition of the word if the act is consensual between adults. It’s really as simple as that, I can’t dumb it down for you any more than that. If it’s abuse, then straight sex is also abuse. What gay people can do to one another, straight people can also do. You’re not going to win this one, Oboehner.

“Forcing people to accept sodomy” – I can’t address this properly until you tell me if you’re actually talking about sodomy, or if you’re talking about homosexuality. They are entirely different, and you know this.

“Because that and putting ones mouth on another’s receptacle for bodily
waste, are all that gay men have available – their only way of having
sex.”

Guess you’ve never heard of kissing. Or “fronting” – pressing against each other just as straight couples do, although with no penetration taking place. And once again, trying to confine sodomy to gay men isn’t helping your argument here.

It doesn’t matter what you condone or don’t. You can’t stop people from having sexual relations, and that’s basically what you’re trying to do and you’re using your Bible to do it because you’ve got nothing else.

Gay male promiscuity leaves heteros in the dust – there may actually be an element of truth to that, but it doesn’t have anything to do with being gay. It has everything to do with being male, and men are more driven by sex than women are. And SOME gay men aren’t looking for commitment but a fast roll in the gay. I don’t condone that from either sex, but at least I have the good sense to know that not all gay men are like that. Not by a mile.

The Ellen stereotype is just downright offensive, because once again you’re tarring all gay people and lesbians with the same brush. That’s the problem with stereotypes, there are elements of truth to them, but then people assume it’s all or nothing and I know that “role playing” is something done by a few but not nearly by all.

Oboehner

Gay sex is a mutual abuse. Consent means absolutely nothing except in a court of law, it doesn’t change the fact gay is a mental disorder.
“you’re actually talking about sodomy, or if you’re talking about homosexuality. They are entirely different, and you know this.” You’re ignorance is showing again, 99.9% of gay men engage in it repeatedly – or are you going to deny this?
“You can’t stop people from having sexual relations” I don’t have to accept it, you can’t stop people from murdering each other and I don’t have to accept that either.

Gay male promiscuity leaves heteros in the dust – because of their sexual addiction, it’s consumes them just like drugs consume the drug addict.

“The Ellen stereotype is just downright offensive” Ellen is offensive (but that’s another topic) does she or does she not have butch hair and dress like a man? I have seen countless gay couples that have a female role and a male role, a vast majority of them in fact.

Ronald Carter

Gay sex is not a mutual abuse – if it was abuse it would be rape. How can something consensual between two people be abuse?

Gay isn’t a mental order, and that’s not a fact, that’s your opinion, and not a particularly well-informed one, but it seems that you’re not interested in the field of psychiatry and mental health.

“99.9% of gay men engage in it repeatedly – or are you going to deny this?” – you’re damn right I’m going to deny it, what a ridiculous thing to say, and don’t even pretend you can provide me with a reliable statistic to back it up. All you are giving me are your opinions, formed no doubt by your church.

“You can’t stop people from murdering each other” – irrelevant, that IS an act of abuse and illegal, it has nothing to do with homosexuality.

“because of their sexual addiction” – citation please, it is not sexual addition but a homosexual relationship.

Ellen has butch hair and looks masculine. So what? Plenty of straight women do too. Ever seen Tilda Swinton? Role playing is a tired old stereotype. Clearly you know of no gay or lesbian couples.

Oboehner

Mutual is consensual there genius, that also means it is not rape.
Gay is a mental disorder, gay always was a mental disorder and was officially listed as such by the APA until militant gays fought to have it removed. It was removed not because the consensus changed but because of the pressure to do so. That is fact.
Don’t even pretend you can provide me with a reliable statistic to back it up your claims. All you are giving me are your opinions, formed no doubt by watching gay porn.

“You can’t stop people from murdering each other” Highly relevant given your statement: “You can’t stop people from having sexual relations” pointing to the fact that people do wrong things.

“it is not sexual addition but a homosexual relationship.” There are several reasons, sexual addiction is the most common, among others is abuse, sexual conditioning, (for men) lack of father figure causing a longing for male closeness, unhealthy childhood experiences with the opposite sex, as long as other emotional problems.

I have seem many gay relationships and stand by my statement. Clearly you know of no gay or lesbian couples.

Ronald Carter

“Mutual is consensual there genius, that also means it is not rape.” – You’re right, because they both want to engage in the practice and are consenting adults. But if you want to call it abuse, then one of the two parties cannot be consenting. You want to have it both ways but simple logic won’t allow you to.

“until militant gays fought to have it removed.” – that is known as a PRATT (previously refuted a thousand times). Homosexuals were such a marginalized group in the 1970s they wouldn’t have possessed the power to affect the decisions of a group as big as the APA. What happened was, the APA got newer and better data and the bigots didn’t like it. It’s pretty pathetic to think you could affect the facts and findings of a scientific body by lobbying – it’s science, not politics.

Pretty sure you’ve been given lots of reliable statistics and you’re choosing to either hold your ears and run the other way or sneer at them because they defy your church.

“pointing to the fact that people do wrong things” – a statement of opinion if ever there was. Who defines “wrong”? You? Are you an authority on the matter?

“There are several reasons” – and every one you gave is old, outdated, long refuted, or plain ridiculous. I’d tell you to go look at what the APA says on the subject but you’re already convinced they’re puppets of the so-called “gaystapo”.

I know and work with many gay people, if I showed them the things you were saying they would be appalled.

Oboehner

“But if you want to call it abuse, then one of the two parties cannot be consenting.” Familiarize yourself with the term “mutual”.
“that is known as a PRATT (previously refuted a thousand times).” That is known as BS revisionist history and empty claims. “outdated, long refuted, or plain ridiculous” Nope, just not popular among perverts, makes them look as bad as they are.
“the APA got newer and better data and the bigots didn’t like it.” No they got more pro-gay BS right along with their partially taking pedophilia off of the list as well. In 1970 gay activists protested against the APA convention in San Francisco. This was repeated in 1971 until the APA caved. The removal of homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses was not done because of some scientific breakthrough, it was the simple reality that gay people started to raise a stink.
Pretty sure you’ve been given lots of reliable statistics and you’re choosing to either hold your ears and run the other way or sneer at them because they defy your love of sodomy.

“I know and work with many gay people, if I showed them the things you were saying they would be appalled.” LOL, what do you expect them to say? Like most mentally deficient people denial is a part of life – hence step one of the twelve step program.

Ronald Carter

“Familiarize yourself with the term “mutual”. – Familiarize yourself with the term “abuse,” and then familiarize yourself with the phrase “willfully obtuse”. What two people do consensually for pleasure cannot be called abuse – not even by someone who cannot accept it. Some Christian fundamentalist churches do faith healing. They do it for pleasure. I think it’s ridiculous, absurd and fraudulent, but I can’t call it abuse because they’re not getting hurt – they’re just being brainwashed with superstition.

“That is known as BS revisionist history” – What is? That the APA gave in to some gay lobby? I couldn’t agree with you more. Utter garbage, revisionist history, and completely false.

“Nope, just not popular among perverts, makes them look as bad as they are.” – what a shame all you have is hearsay. The only information online about it is from militant anti-gay sites. And not a single word, bupkiss, anyplace else. Guess you lose, huh? It’s a pretty lame argument you’re making anyway, gay people had ZERO power in the 1970s. They probably DID make some noise, but as I said before, you cannot lobby a scientific organization simply because you don’t like their data.

“Like most mentally deficient people denial is a part of life” – No, they’d most likely say who is this angry, hateful little man who can’t accept scientific facts and data? I would lay 10 to 1 odds you’re an evolution denier as well. Make that 100 to 1. Science deniers are really not that difficult to spot.

Oboehner

Two heroin addicts sharing a needle, consensual socializing?

“I think it’s ridiculous, absurd and fraudulent, but I can’t call it abuse because they’re not getting hurt – they’re just being brainwashed with superstition.” You are free to have faith in whatever you want, nobody will target you and sue you out of business for those views.

“gay people had ZERO power in the 1970s” You have zero clue as to what you are talking about. What is it, the APA’s listing of gays matters, but their listing of pedophiles isn’t?

“The only information online about it is from militant anti-gay sites.” Nope not true, and if it were the truth is scrubbed by militant pro-gay groups.

Scientific facts and date, LOL. You’ve presented none, my university psychology class tried and that was a joke – they left out numerous possibilities just to push a pro-gay agenda.

“Science deniers are really not that difficult to spot.” Right, I see you.

Ronald Carter

“Two heroin addicts sharing a needle, consensual socializing?” Yes.

“nobody will target you and sue you out of business for those views.” – nobody who tries to invoke their religion when it comes to breaking the law has anything to worry about.

“What is it, the APA’s listing of gays matters, but their listing of pedophiles isn’t?” – Both are valid, but it doesn’t matter what pedophiles want, they’re never going to get it if it involves abusing an innocent victim. But you show no signs of understand what consent means, so I don’t expect you to understand this. A child below the established age of consent is always going to be innocent. No one at ALL is going to permit underage children to participate in sexual acts with adults. Ever. Period.

“Nope not true, and if it were the truth is scrubbed by militant pro-gay groups.” – False. It’s the same names coming up over and over in there, and most of them are associated with the radical Christian right and hate groups.

“my university psychology class tried and that was a joke – they left out numerous possibilities just to push a pro-gay agenda.” – Suuuuuuuuure they did. I’ll bet you got a really good grade too, since everything is conspiracy theory to you.

“Right, I see you.” – Uh huh. What science have I denied? I can easily list all the science you denied and CONTINUE to deny.

Jolanda Tiellemans

You know I know a gay couple, two guys, and it’s very hard to say who is the “woman”. Both have a six-pack, tattoos and both ride a harley. Damn those guys look hot in leather. Oh and both have beards.

Oboehner

I’ll bet they are monogamous, right?

Jolanda Tiellemans

Let’s see I know one of them since my childhood and he met his husband when I was about 22, I’m now 47 so do the math.

Oboehner

Doesn’t answer the question.

Jolanda Tiellemans

No matter what answer I’ll give you would not believe it, so why bother.

Oboehner

Cop out.

Jolanda Tiellemans

Okay, yes they are in a monogamous relationship. But as I said before, you probably don’t believe it.

Oboehner

If true, that would be an exception not the rule.

Ronald Carter

Gay marriage, anyone?
Don’t most people who get married stay monogamous?
You keep shooting yourself in the foot.

Paige Turner

Sounds like you have first hand knowledge.

Gott Mit Uns!

Is there even anything in Mississippi worth boycotting?

Paige Turner

Yes! – Oboehner lives there.

Gott Mit Uns!

A Mississippi hospitality group with 1400 hotels, restaurants, and shops among its members has a plan to mitigate damage to the state’s reputation. From Jackson’s ABC affiliate:

Mike Cashion, executive director of the MHRA, said “when HB 1523 was signed, Mississippi was thrust into the national spotlight. Regardless of its intent, this legislation has created a level of controversy and public perception that affects the image of our state and the hospitality community.”

The campaign is voluntary and free for members of the Hospitality and Tourism industries. According to MHRA, it will design, print and distribute door decals to restaurants or hospitality related businesses that would like to convey the message, “Everyone’s Welcome Here.” It will also create a website that will list the participating businesses.

Cashion said, “Our industry serves a diverse customer base and we want to make sure all customers are appreciated and welcomed.”

So then, what if pro-gun states want to boycott the states with strict gun laws citing the violation of the second amendment? If all the states start implementing laws to restrict interstate business with each other based on their feelings toward other states, we won’t be “United States” of anything anymore.

acontraryview

“If all the states start implementing laws to restrict interstate business”

No law was passed regarding the restriction of interstate business.

WorldGoneCrazy

“Discrimination is not a New York value.” Except when one is discriminating against Mississippi, I suppose.

Fewer Democrats in Mississippi? I don’t think the folks there will be weeping, especially since they drove the Slavery Party, now the Abortion Party, out some time ago.

Ronald Carter

Nobody is discriminating against Mississippi, they are speaking out against a discriminatory Mississippi law.

Ambulance Chaser

I’m not aware of any law that lists “being Mississippi” as a protected class.

John N

Too bad we can’t separate into two different countries, America and Sodom. America would be a thousand times better off without the pro-sodomy, high-tax, big-government states. The liberals and their disgusting agenda are too much to stomach.

RWH

Yeah! Let’s divide. All the redneck whites can form their own country to congratulate themselves on passing laws for keeping those pesky minorities–like the blacks, the brown people, those pesky women, and horrors, the gays–all those who don’t see eye to eye with while male superiority, in their place.

Paige Turner

I agree.

Succeed already. Happy to see them go.

JS

Sounds good to me.

Warrior

AMEN

Ronald Carter

That’s not a million miles removed from what their “rapture” fantasy sounds like.

Elie Challita

And yet you’d still be begging “Sodom” for federal funding to support your broke ass states 🙂

States must not take bullying from the liberals and powerful businesses. Mankind has rights to the truth, morality, and liberty. No submission to the Sodomites in the West. The slave-owning Westerners of yesteryears were not sexual pervs at least, but today’s bullies are baby-killing nudist pervs. Man must submit to God alone – the foundation of human rights and liberty in the Western civilization therefore for the entire world. USA needs the Holy Bible to become humane again.

Paige Turner

What on earth are you talking about?

I wonder how you would feel if you were denied service because I disagree with your religious beliefs?

Grace Kim Kwon

To Christians, serving gay weddings is just like participating in a Satan worship. All Americans must see that.

Paige Turner

You did not answer the question.

How would you feel if you were denied service because I disagree with your religious beliefs?

Providing a service is not participation. The baker, the photographer and the venue are not participating. It’s much like the supermarket who sells you the things for your birthday party is not participating in your birthday party. The restaurant who feeds you at your divorce party is not participating in your divorce party.

The Bible also forbids divorce and re-marriage of couples.

Do you deny service to those folks as well?

Please take as long as you want to ponder these 2 very important questions.

Grace Kim Kwon

Some divorces and re-marriages can be biblically approved but no homosexual union or such practices. No one forces celebrations of divorce and re-marriage but the Western culture forces people to serve and celebrate the sin of homosexuality and transgenderism. Christians don’t force any homosexuals to celebrate gay people’s eternal condemnation. You must leave the Christians alone.

Paige Turner

You have still not answered the question.

How would you feel if you were denied service because I disagree with your religious beliefs?

Which divorces and remarriages can be biblically approved and by whom?

No one is being forced to celebrate anything. You are able to decline to attend a wedding should you not want to go. You cannot however refuse service to one group that you personally disapprove of.

Perhaps you can explain how you have been forced to celebrate the sin of homosexuality against your will?

The bible condemns interracial marriages. Do you deny those people as well?

Your persecution complex is disingenuous. You don’t “own” marriage. You still have holy matrimony and no one can force a religious leader to marry anyone in a church that they don’t want to, however civil marriage is now legal for all couples.

Please take as long as you like to answer these very relevant questions.

acontraryview

” People must have rights to refuse serving gay weddings and any conducts of abortion and sexual immorality.”

That would require amending our Constitution.

Grace Kim Kwon

US Constitution protects open practices of Christian religion. American Founders never imagined that some Americans would become Sodomic nudists who’d persecute the Christians. People have rights to the truth and morality.

acontraryview

“US Constitution protects open practices of Christian religion.”

Please cite where, in the US Constitution, there is protection for citizens to practice their religion in any manner, at any time, and in any location they care to.

“People have rights to the truth and morality.”

The totality of truth and morality varies among people. You are certainly free to believe as you care to, but your belief does not translate into absolute truth or morality.

Grace Kim Kwon

Read your constitution. No one is supposed to interfere moral Christians. All your founders took the noble ideas solely from the Holy Bible anyway. Christianity is the absolute truth and absolute morality because all others and combinations of anything abuse fellow humans when they have no dominant Judeo-Christian values. It’s a self-evident fact. Secular Westerners are abusing human rights by forcing Christians to support homosexuality. To Christians, gay wedding is a falsehood and despicable as Satan worship. Stop persecuting the Christians. You guys are being too well-fed and bored.

acontraryview

“Read your constitution.”

I’m very familiar with the US Constitution. You, however, do not seem to be. There is nothing in the US Constitution which provides for the right of citizens to express their religious belief in any manner, at any place, or at any time they care to.

“No one is supposed to interfere moral Christians.”

That is also not in our Constitution.

“Stop persecuting the Christians.”

Christians aren’t being persecuting in the US.

Jolanda Tiellemans

Sodomic nudists.

There are people in your country walking naked in the streets? How perverted.

disqus_O2BUmbLecp

No, the US Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion of the citizens/people from being abrogated by the powerful US govt.
…….Most US Christians believe it is against their religion to participate in a gay wedding, eg a florist making floral arrangement, a baker baking a gay-themed cake, a photographer taking photos or a wedding planner making plans for a gay wedding.

The US Constitution only prohibits the US govt n employers from discriminating against citizens/people based on religion, color/race, sexual gender n national origin.(- there is no provision for sexual orientation included)
…….It is only some vote-pandering liberal Blue States who hv enacted State laws to also include prohibiting employers n businesses from discriminating other residents based on sexual orientation.

To me, the sexual orientation of homosexuality is a choice for evil, similar to the choice to commit adultery, fornication/player, rape, incest, pedophilia, bestiality, prostitution, murder, stealing, perjury/lying, etc. They should be discriminated against.
…….ROM.1:18-32 state that some people hv purposely n knowingly chosen to reject God n His Law, n so God curses/punishes them by purposely n knowingly rejecting them as heteros n changing them into homosexuals, …maybe thru His permissive will of allowing Satan to control their sexual inclination.

Chip01

You know. I think you are right. Christians have a very warped sense of reality…

That’s OK. The real issue will be the legal challenges. If this holds up in court and Mississippi continues to stands firm, then this will remain as law. Everything else is a distraction.

acontraryview

Highly doubtful this law will hold up in court.

Guest

It can’t hold up – Section 2 with its mention of just particular religious beliefs renders it unconstitutional. The SCOTUS has ruled on this involving the ritual sacrificing of goats. Those against such sacrifices tried to pass laws to make it more difficult to do legally just as this law tries to give special cover for those against certain practices. The court ruled 9-0 that was unconstitutional.

If there can’t be laws that make it harder to hold a religious sacrifice and they aren’t constitutional then laws that try and make it harder to have a wedding for a same sex couple aren’t either.

Pandora’s Box is either all the way open or closed – if they are going to allow religious discrimination about these topics it has to be available to all legal views on the topic not just one side of the issue.

John_33

We will see. I’m very interested in how the courts will handle it.

acontraryview

No doubt government workers in Vermont, Minnesota, Connecticut, New York and Washington are breathing a sigh of relief.

Non-essential travel: your vote for the Democrats is a vote for non-essential government travel. You are voting for full time partying for those that toe the party line, and further, you vote to take away this inter-state pork barrel spending from non-Democrat states. They said their inter-state travel is a big deal: it must be a big deal.

JS

If these ignorant democrats govoners are not examples of who not to vote for. Who do these little dicks think they are?

Warrior

It is a discriminatory act to deny people under him the right to go where they want. Pure ignorance , He lets Men freely go into women`s restrooms then tells people they can not go to a state that has moral obligations to God.. Just another Son of Satan

Jolanda Tiellemans

I’m glad we don’t have all those issues here in the Netherlands. But I don’t get it, your nation is called land of the free. Don’t see much happening of that lately with all those new laws discriminating against LGBT. Live and let live, some of you should really try it, it is so liberating.

Amos Moses

So how are all those muslims invading your country and raping women as a result of “freedom”…. how is all that working out for you? Are you living and let them live in “freedom” to do what they are doing?

Jolanda Tiellemans

Which Muslims, most go to Germany. Not many come to the Netherlands.

And no news on Muslims raping women here.

Amos Moses

Well you brought up liberty and how “liberating” it is…………. Hmmmmm, not so “liberating” for the victims…..

Muslim Migrants Sexual Assault Spree in Holland | Pamela Geller
Sep 30, 2015 …
The new normal.
The suspects are all aged from 18 to 20 years old. A father of one victim said the men, “did not clearly understand that Dutch women are not pleased by being sexually assaulted after a night out.”
WTH? What women are?
Three men requesting asylum in Almere are suspected in sexual assaults of as many as five women in the Flevoland city over the weekend.
Anyone in Holland who doesn’t support Geert Wilders is self-destructive.

Muslim Gang Rapists are Springing Up Everywhere. Why Can’t We Be Honest About It?
Aug 27, 2014 … In the Netherlands, it’s Moroccans and Turks who have taken …. How long before we admit there’s a Muslim gang rape problem in this country?

Jolanda Tiellemans

Oh look Pamela Geller the biggest critic when it comes to Islam. Sorry you need to do better then that.

Amos Moses

She is not the best…………. but she seems to a few legs up on you.

John N

Now look at that – a religious fundamentalist, an islamophobic war crime denialist, and a known Dutch racist and fear-mongerer – all teaming up! Who would have thought that!

No, Amos, muslism are not ‘invading’ Europe. They are fleeing a war zone where a bunch of religious fundamentalists are doing what fundamentalists do when the have the power: make everybody believe and behave exactly like they do, and make life hell for those who oppose. Sounds familiar? Thought so.

Is that so… well , what you have done when thousands of fugitives from religious wars came to your shores looking for a save haven?

Oh, why asking. One of your presidential candidates already gave the answer: just drive them back into the sea and let them drown.

Now that is some christian attitude!

Amos Moses

It is a christian thing to do to allow them to enter IF they would agree to follow the laws of the land………. and many of them DO NOT want the constitution…..they want sharia…. you know that wonderful law that allows homosexuals to see if they can learn to fly as they plummet to their death from a roof…… but i guess that would be preferable? Really? But the “christian thing to do” would be to allow that? Do you ever smell what you are shoveling?

That Multicultural policies and a lack of integration may have directly fuelled violent extremism, is “one of the most significant findings” of the What British Muslims Really Think survey and documentary, presenter and former Labour politician Trevor Philips said.

In order to promote national security he suggested ending the “live and let live” approach to Muslims, and instead suggested forcefully assert British values.

What is the most extensive survey of opinions and attitudes among British Muslims ever conducted, commissioned by Channel 4, found that Muslims who sympathies with violent jihad are around twice as likely to prefer to live a more separate, un-integrated life in Britain than those who don’t.

The survey found that more than 100,000 Muslim living in the UK harbour some degree of support for jihadist mass murder in the name of Islam.

It found that 4 per cent of Muslim sympathise with people who take part in suicide bombings, and a further 4 per cent sympathise with people who commit terrorist actions as a form of political protest.

Furthermore, only 34% would inform the police if they thought somebody they knew was getting involved with people who support terrorism in Syria.

The director of ICM Research, who conducted the survey, explained for the programme that a number of other attitudes correlate with such a sympathy towards violent jihad. There were, “things that explain why people might move down the path towards violence”, as he put it.

Nice. More evidence of religious fundamentalists being a danger to society.

Comparable with the Colorado- based christian pastor calling for the execution of gays – and getting away with that!

Amos Moses

So you think godless is the way to go………

John N

Since there is not a speck of evidence for any gods, it has been godless since the beginning.

Religionless would be something to go for ….

Amos Moses

So, let me ask………how many Jews were murdered by Hitler?

John N

I see. Godwin’s Law at work.

So I guess you’re out of rational arguments defending the discrimination of homosexuals. Got it. Time to quit.

Amos Moses

So no answer………….. how many were murdered…..

Amos Moses

The answer is ………NONE.

Amos Moses

So who do you say we should follow and believe and obey?

John N

You don’t need to follow, believe or obey anyone (well, unless you are married of course). You’ve got to think for yourself!

(I’ve got a feeling these wise words have been used before. But I simply couldn’t resist)

Amos Moses

So when the cops pull you over…..flash red and blue lights……… there is no need for you to follow and obey…… is that correct?

John N

So you think the law is something you can choose to believe in and to choose to follow an obey… correct?

Well, at least that seems to be consistent with the attitude of fundamentalists in the US who think the law is only their to protect their own rights, but should not be used to protect other people’s rights.

Amos Moses

i am asking you…….you are the one who thinks there is no god…. So i ask you “So who do you say we should follow and believe and obey?”…. your answer was “You don’t need to follow, believe or obey anyone”… but then you say “So you think the law is something you can choose to believe in and to choose to follow an obey” when that actually applies to your first response………… So, i ask again,,,,,,

“So who do you say we should follow and believe and obey?”

John N

So I ask again – is the law something you choose to believe in? Do you choose to follow a certain law and obey it because you believe in it?

I happen to follow the law because I see it is working – rather well. I happen to know the law is not ordained by an imaginary deity. I know this because the laws I accept to follow, are created by people. Some of them I even voted for, and some of these laws were written during my lifetime.

So, do you ‘believe’ in the law?

Amos Moses

“I happen to follow the law because I see it is working – rather well. ”

As christians we are to obey the law…. until it is in opposition to Gods law. Then we have no obligation to follow it if we come into conflict with it.

So getting back to the question…….. Hitler murdered no Jews….. is that ok…why?

John N

So you feel you do not have to follow the law of the land you chose to life in, if it happened to contain something you do not like?

How do you think a society is able to work like that?

Amos Moses

So when Germany made the killing of Jews “legal” you were okay with that, after all that was the law. Any Jews that were killed were “legal”…….and you believe in the law…… So consequently you are okay with the holocaust………because it was “legal”……..

How do you think a society is able to work like that?

John N

Godwins Law part two.

So if your god told you to attack your enemies, kill all the males and the old females, keeping the virgin females for yourself to rape, you will be glad to obey?

So you are ok with genocide, infanticide and mass rapes?

Then why blame Hitler and the nazi’s for doing god’s work?

Amos Moses

No, that is your argument and your pussified way to not argue your point is to invoke some phony internet nonsense…. We can do it for slavery with being “legal” and we can do it for other cases where things were “legal”…. not supposedly “legal” but actually “legal” and since you believe it is good to only follow the law…… it is up to you to defend or abandon your position…………….

So which is it…… are you going to man up and defend what you say………. or puss out?

John N

My argument? Internet nonsense? It is your god I’m refering to, your bible. He could command you to kill, you know. He has done it before, or that’s what your holy book tells us.

So talking about pussying out, tell us you are OK with that?

Are you prepared to break all laws to follow a god who according his own holly book, has not only murdered all of mankind by drowning them, but also ordered his followers to murder and rape? A god who loves the smell of burning flesh and blood? A god who presumedly ordered one of his favorites to kill his own son? Who does not have any problem with slavery, suppression of women, of colored people and of homosexuals?

And no, I’m not OK with the nazi’s killing jews, even when they claimed doing your god’s work. Do you?

Amos Moses

No, you are trying to avoid defending your position because Hitler is invoked and you as a girly-man can’t defend your position…………………

John N

Coming from a man invoking Hitler and the nazi’s because that seems to be the only argument they really have against atheism… even when Hitler himself acknowledged only doing your god’s work.

So are you ‘manly’ enough to follow your god’s commands as well and kill your enemies and rape their daughters?

Or are you a better man than your god?

Amos Moses

So, slavery,,,,, being the law of men………. and being part of this country…. we had no business overthrowing it and disobeying that law…………..

We should still be under England and the Queen…. not our own government…. because we should have obeyed the law and not gone into rebellion to it because………….what?….. that law is to be followed?…. and never questioned or disobeyed?…………Really?

Amos Moses

“follow your god’s commands as well and kill your enemies and rape their daughters?”

Can’t find that in the NT……….. but this is what you are asking for when you ask government to act as a moral agent to enforce laws…………….. so answer your own question.

John N

Oh right, I forgot. You don’t like the vicious god of the OT, therefore it is no longer relevant. So, creation didn’t happen, did it?

Are you ‘manly’ enough to follow your god’s commands as well and kill your enemies and rape their daughters?

Or are you a better man than your god?

Amos Moses

As i have said……..there is no biblical mandate to do so……….So…………

John N

Oh, I would say Leviticus 20:13 is really clear in what you have to do. There is your mandate and your excuse. You might even get away within in court.

So, what will it be? Follow your god or be a better man and follow the law?

Amos Moses

And that law is binding, by God, on them, not on us to enforce it…..they will die in sin…they will pay a penalty for that sin…….there is nothing in the NT that says we are to follow that law as far as the penalty……. If the government abolished the IRS…..would you then demand to pay your taxes the next year because that WAS the law?……….. No, despite our disagreements… you are not an idiot…… the law is not abolished…..but the person imposing the penatly has not said it is now ok….only that men are not required to kill those who break it………………. so fail on your part on that reasoning………………

John N

So your god has changed his mind, did he?

Like in the OT, he wanted you to kill homosexuals. In the NT, he just forbids you to bake them cakes?

Did he also change his mind on slavery, women suppression, stoning children for misbehaviour and raping your enemies’ daughters? Or are those laws still valid?

And jews are still bound to those old laws, I understand?

Amos Moses

No, as i just said….he has not changed His mind on homosexuality…….it is still a violation of His law…at the time of Leviticus…. the population much smaller and the effect of homosexuality was a detriment to society in a more profound way….. we are not to lead them astray as to the nature of their sin…. we can bake them all kinds of cakes….. but not wedding cakes for a homosexual union…. that would be leading them astray….. leading them to sin….. there are consequences for actions….. homosexuals want there to be none…. does not work that way…… and unlike a person who may have been divorced of whatever…. they usually do not go about announcing their status….. homosexuals OTOH, not so much…………..

Amos Moses

“Did he also change his mind on slavery, women suppression, stoning children for misbehaviour and raping your enemies’ daughters? Or are those laws still valid?”

Matthew
13:24 Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
13:25 But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
13:26 But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
13:27 So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
13:28 He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
13:29 But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
13:30 Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

The tares are the unrepentant sinners………So they are going to burn,,,,, but some of those laws we are no longer required to prosecute…. but the penalty is still the same… they will burn………. we have a responsibility to tell them that……….again and again….

Amos Moses

BTW, biblical slavery and US slavery are not the samething….. not even close….. so that is a strawman argument……………. but nice try……… Try reading some scripture before you make such silly comparisons……..

John N

So you are saying your bible does not tell you it is OK to buy other people, that these will be your possession forever, even to be inherited by your children, or until you decide to sell them?

You are definively sure about that?

Oh, if I only received one dollar from every christian that does not know his own holy book …

Amos Moses

“So you are saying your bible does not tell you it is OK to buy other people,”

This is what it says about how slaves are to be treated, in contrast to US slavery:

Slaves had protections. Biblical slavery is not the same as modern slavery. Exodus 21 spells out how a slave must be kept and cared for during his servitude.

If a person was sold into slavery, the money went to THE SLAVE to settle the slaves debts.

Slaves were not allowed to work on the sabbath.

Slaves were to be released every six years. At the end of six years, the master was required to give the slave enough funds to establish a new life.

If after six years they wanted to stay they had to be released every 50 years during the jubilee.

If the slave wanted to stay they were required to appear before he a priest and declare they wanted to remain a slave and have a nail driven through their ear. There was no compulsion. They had to publicly declare it.

Slavery was an option for those in debt or in poverty.

If the slave ran away it was against the law to return a slave to the master. There were sanctuary cities established.

In Exodus 21;16, it is against the law to kidnap a man and making a slave punishable by death.
21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

And actually, Israel never captured and sold humans as did the the Phoenicians and Philistines.

Most slave owners in the US, once they became christians, set their slaves free. It was the christian world view that ENDED slavery in this country……….. nothing else.

John N

I see.

So you do not deny the hebrews kept slaves, but you claim it is morally ok because they had certain ‘protections’ and it was only to pay off their debts.

We still call this kind of forced labor slavery, you know. Mostly in combination with prostitution and abuse of women and children.

And that is just what they did to their own people, their fellow jews. Correct?

Because what you forget to mention is that, according that same bible, foreign slaves did not have these protections, right? That they could be bought and remained property for life unless sold, including their children?

Because why let facts spoil a good story?

Amos Moses

As i just said….Israel did not…… and “slavery” was more akin to a welfare system……… so if you are paying taxes and support welfare for the poor………..you are keeping slaves……so what is your excuse………..

John N

Slavery was a welfare system?

Right.

And israelites never did it.

Right.

And now you are going to tell me that what the bible says, is fiction.

Right!

Amos Moses

There was no “state sponsored welfare” then… it was illegal to force others into slavery…. punishable by death……so what else would you call it? …… people needed to be cared for …… that was the system……..Israelites went into slavery ………… but if you can show me where Israel held slaves….go for it……………….

John N

Amos, you are really desparate now, aren’t you?

We are not discussing the fact that isrealites did or did not keep slaves.

Slavery is condoned and even promoted by your bible and therefore by your god.

That there were some limitations for enslaving other isrealites which did not count for foreign slaves, only makes things worse for you. You do realize that christian would be considered foreigners at that time, do you?

So you actually worship a god that once saw not a problem with enslaving you. And you know, god never changes his mind …

Amos Moses

“Slavery is condoned and even promoted by your bible and therefore by your god.”

No, sorry…. it is not promoted………. if you want to see it that way…. so what……. as you post modernists are want to say “That is YOUR opinion”………………… and it is worth what is paid for it………………

The fact is……modern welfare is even worse of a system of enslavement……..and it does not seem to bother you one wit to keep your brothers enslaved……. so what?………..

John N

‘Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever. ….’

‘Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God.’

You were right, Amos, your bible does not promote slavery, it is more than that, it is a divine command!

No wonder christians have been using their bible to justify slavery for thousands of years until a few hundreds years ago.

And you do not get away with ‘ancient welfare’ – it is slavery, pure and simple. If you were alive in that time, you and your children might have been the everlasting possession of an isrealite who is instructed by your own god to do so.

I just can not understand how you can morally justify such belief. Nut hey, I am just a heathen to your god. Oh wait, so are you …

Amos Moses

“it is a divine command!”

No, it is not,,,, not one commandment says it….. nor did Christ……..

“3:22 Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God:
3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
3:24 Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ.”

So what this is saying is,,,, that ALL men have worth to God…. no matter their circumstances….. and if it is the law…..obey the law….. which is what you say we should do above all else……..

“I just can not understand how you can morally justify such belief.”

i have not………. where did i say it was moral…… but you want those on welfare to remain in perpetual slavery….. and as i have said…. you don’t bat an eyelash….. you are not bothered ONE WIT……

Men make slaves,,,,,,, not God…… You deny God………… so where does that put you?……….. as a slaver, as one who wants those on welfare to remain there,,,,, you do not care if they do or not………. and who do you have to blame …… BUT YOURSELF AND OTHER MEN FOR DOING IT……………… because,,, for you at least…… there is no God…….. So it must be YOU……….

You do know, repeatedly disobeying your lords’ commands is considered a crime against him, what you call a ‘sin’. And denying that is even worse, you know.

So before you start picking om homosexuals again, do know that you are a much greater sinner that they will ever be, Amos.

Yes, I do not believe your god exists. And I condemn slavery. Because no one should be allowed to possess other people, not even for six years. Contrary to your bible, the word of your god. Therefore, even if your god would exist, I would not worship or follow a deity that allows or even commands his favorite people to keep slaves.

And I guess you wouldn’t either.

Amos Moses

You deny He exists……….. so you are here shaking your fist at something you say does not exist………………….. There is no commandment………. what you presented……. is NOT a commandment………. and your illiteracy of the bible is showing………….. So FAIL…….

Amos Moses

You say he does not exist……….. so the only one you have to blame……………IS YOU……….

John N

Not relevant. YOU think he exists. Therefore it is YOU who has to cope with the absurdities and moral deficiencies in YOUR gods ‘own’ words.

As for me, it is simple. The israelites created their god in their own image. The lived in a cruel world were slavery, oppression of women and minorities and cruelty vs. children was not unusual. Therefore their god did condone and even promoted these atrocities.

There is no one to blame here, except the religious fundamentalist that use these ancient books to justify their own despicable moral standards.

Amos Moses

Entirely RELEVANT………….You deny he exists……. you deny that you support slavery TODAY… and you do……… but you want to lay claim to a supposed “moral superiority” because you think you are against slavery……..AND YOU PAY FOR PEOPLE TO BE IN SLAVERY….. but they call it a “Welfare system”……..just slavery by another name…… and you support abortion…….which DISPROPORTIONATELY kills black children……. but you still claim to a supposed “moral superiority” …….. when IN FACT…. ALL your positions are AMORAL………….. and you still stand as a liar……. and a self-righteous, false morally superior liar at that…………..another word for that is hypocrite………..

Amos Moses

The only ones who accept slavery are those that reject God…….

The Reasons Why Democrats Are the Party of Slavery and Victimization
youtube. Remove this space com/watch?v=9kry_VfFSh4

John N

Wrong.

The people that traded slaves between Africa, Europe and the US for centuries, were mostly christians. And they used the bible to justify it – the same verses you deny condone slavery. And that is historical fact.

Amos Moses

Sorry, they were taken into slavery by OTHER AFRICANS and then sold……….. and that does not change one IOTA this scripture:

Exodus
21:16 And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.

John N

…. and then sold to christians who sold them to other christians who treated them like animals for the rest of their life and their childrens’ life. I know.

I’m sure you can find bible verses that you think support your position.

But that is not really the point, is it, Amos? We all know the bible is well known for its’ internal inconsistencies.

The point is that the verses I showed you from your own bible, do say the israelites do have to buy and keep slaves. And since you believe the whole bible is inerrant …

Amos Moses

And all that was part of Gods plan……..to take them out of Africa……… and bring them here….. where their children could benefit from growing up among christians………….. God is sovereign and yes i can find numerous scriptures to support it……… one being…

Genesis
50:20 But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive.
50:21 Now therefore fear ye not: I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spake kindly unto them.

” We all know the bible is well known for its’ internal inconsistencies.”

No, you do not understand what you are reading, and what you want to read is to your own desire and not Gods desire…….. you want to take Gods words and use them against Him…. and it is a fools errand……….. so have at your errand………. you are only shaking your fist at that which YOU say DOES NOT EXIST………. and so look only foolish doing so……

“do say the israelites do have to buy and keep slaves.”

And you do not even understand who the Israelites are…….. so , NO!

Amos Moses

The place where the “slave trade” survives and thrives…… to this day…. is in Africa…………enslaving their brothers…………. so what does that do to your theory?…………….

John N

So what? Do you mean israelites and christians ought to have a monopoly of slave trade?

Amos Moses

So tell me, where do christians and Jews hold slaves today?………….Right,,,,,,, NOWHERE ………… FAIL…… Except as slaves of a welfare state…………that you support……. So you are an enslaver……….

John N

Fail? No. Exactly my point!

In most of the world today, we do not keep slaves anymore. We do not silence our women, kill our children for inobedience our rape our enemies. Morally, we are today far better people than your fictional god ever was, as depicted in your holy book.

But for some reason, fundamentalists do not want to see that and stick to their bible as being the inerrant source of absolute, objective and unchancing morality. Which is quite sad, if you think about it

Amos Moses

“In most of the world today, we do not keep slaves anymore”

Yes….you do…… it is called Welfare……….. and it goes on from one generation to the next……. and you do nothing to change it……. and you support abortion…… of black children….. as a testament to your supposed “love wins” for them…………

Amos Moses

So lets look at the “success” of being godless…………. ALL ATHEISTS…………

Joseph Stalin – 10 and 20 million Soviets and German prisoners of war died under his regime, depending on how many famine victims you count, from Gulags, execution, and forced resettlement.

Mao Zedong – killed unknown tens of millions of Chinese, most of them in public executions and violent clashes.

Pol Pot – 2 million Cambodians, or as much as 20% of the population, died from execution, disease and starvation.

John N

And which of these killed people in the name of atheism?

None of them.

You could make comparable lists of dictators who had beards, or who wore glasses. It wouldn’t make a difference. They did what they did for political reasons, but never because they did not believe in a god.

But shall I make a list of religious leaders who killed in the name of their god and their religion? I guess it will be a lot longer.

And at the top of that list, your own god. Killed all of humanity minus 8 people. Well, if you allow imaginary figures on the list.

Amos Moses

All of the men rejected God and the results were………..

John N

All of the men rejected invisible purple unicorns and the results were…

So Amos, are you Ok with Hitlers solution for the jews, knowing he simply did your god’s work?

Amos Moses

But we are not talking about that……..we are talking about God and rejecting Him and what it ultimately leads people to do………………Hitler did what he did and there will be consequences for it….. but God has used it for good…. the fulfillment of prophecy and the return of Israel.

Amos Moses

So you have no basis, no standard to rely on for the basis for “government”…………. but it is clear, when you deny God, you deny that life has any meaning…. that the only thing that we have after that is you or me as to who can exert their will over others to do our will… and this you seem to find preferable…………. so if you are beaten to a bloody pulp… we need not worry about your plight… because it is just you getting what you asked for in the first place……..chickens coming home to roost……….

John N

Life has the meaning someone wants to give it. You think you need a god to do that for you?

You probably also need a god to tell you what’s right and wrong.

Amos Moses

Yes, he did that for eveyone…..even you… or you would not know……….

lizk

read your bible and get to know Jesus,

Amos Moses

Trevor Phillips, Architect of The Islamophobia Industry, Created Criminals Of Islam Critics And Scared People From Reporting Muslim Rape Gangs

It is hard to know how the thousands being prosecuted for thought crimes these days, from one end of Europe to the other, are likely to respond to this weekend’s damning confession by Trevor Phillips.

Twenty years after ordering a pivotal UK report which introduced the West to a newly-defined concept called ‘Islamophobia,’ the admission by the former head of the Commission for Racial Equality, that his report’s contents had “got almost everything wrong,” is nothing short of seismic.

Phillips’s recent remarks were detailed in a feature article, for Britain’s Sunday Times newspaper, prompted by the most comprehensive study ever conducted into the values of the UK’s Islamic population.

The full results of the survey What British Muslims Really Think is set for broadcast on Wednesday, by Channel 4. The findings revealed by the polling giant ICM, so far, deal a knockout blow to the ‘tiny minority of extremists’ narrative dominating discussion of mass Muslim immigration for decades.

ICM’s data outlines the “unacknowledged creation of a nation within a nation, with its own geography, its own values and its own very separate future.”

Research also highlights, “a chasm opening up between Muslims and non-Muslims on such fundamentals as marriage, relations between men and women, schooling, freedom of expression and even the validity of violence in defence of religion.”

Amos Moses

Over half of the UK’s booming Muslim population, for example, would like to see homosexuality made illegal. Worse still, nearly a quarter of Muslims in the UK would prefer to live in fully Islamized enclaves solely governed by Sharia law. While “one in three British Muslims support the right [sic] of a man to have more than one wife.”

Phillips’s article even describes a conversation with Amra, a female Sharia court judge, detailing “advice for the aspirant bigamist,” which calls into question the on-going legal standing of such tribunals. At no point during their cosy chat does anyone mention that they are discussing the facilitation of a criminal offence made illegal in Britain in 1861.

The revelations in the Sunday Times also highlight the alarming “contempt for white girls” among Muslim males in Britain. “The ICM survey provides a torrent of data that backs up the impression that this is a community whose idea of women’s equality lies eons away from the mainstream,” writes Phillips.

Yet given the estimated one million victims of the UK’s Islamic child-sex slavery gangs, over the last twenty years, one feature of Phillips’s article is more striking than any other.

His eagerness to park blame for the issues, thrown up by ICM’s research, on “the problem with Britain’s white liberal elite” instead of at his own front door.

Amos Moses

“Yet given the estimated one million victims of the UK’s Islamic child-sex slavery gangs, over the last twenty years, one feature of Phillips’s article is more striking than any other.”

So we should invite this in? Really? And that is christianity?

Amos Moses

UK Equalities Chief Who Popularised The Term ‘Islamophobia’ Admits: ‘I Thought Muslims Would Blend into Britain… I Should Have Known Better’

The former head of Britain’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission (EHRC), Trevor Phillips, has admitted he “got almost everything wrong” on Muslim immigration in a damning new report on integration, segregation, and how the followers of Islam are creating “nations within nations” in the West.

Phillips, a former elected member of the Labour Party who served as the Chairman of the EHRC from 2003-2012 will present “What British Muslims Really Think” on Channel 4 on Wednesday. An ICM poll released to the Times ahead of the broadcast reveals:

One in five Muslims in Britain never enter a non-Muslim house;

39 per cent of Muslims, male and female, say a woman should always obey her husband;

31 per cent of British Muslims support the right of a man to have more than one wife;

52 per cent of Muslims did not believe that homosexuality should be legal;

23 per cent of Muslims support the introduction of Sharia law rather than the laws laid down by parliament.

John N

Are you sure you are talking about muslims here? Because it sounds a lot like what christian fundamentalists think and support. Which proves exactly my point: religious fundamentalists are one of a kind.

Luckily most western countries do have a secular form of government that limits the influence of any religion in state business -you remember, freedom of religion and freedom from religion.

Amos Moses

Third Atheist Blogger Hacked to Death in Bangladesh – WSJ
May 12, 2015 … Machete-wielding assailants hacked to death an atheist blogger in … Fears grow about increasing radicalization in Muslim-majority country.

But despite there reportedly being a total of 1,049 alleged victims, German police have so far identified only 30 suspects, North Rhine-Westphalia state interior minister Ralf Jäger revealed on Thursday.

All of the suspects are of North African origin, with 15 being asylum seekers.

Out of that figure, two Algerians are reportedly behind bars accused of sexual offences including grabbing a woman’s buttocks.

The list was released by Mr Jäger on Thursday.

Outrage erupted across Europe when more than 500 women reported being sexually assaulted, raped and robbed after more than 1,000 migrants went on the rampage in Cologne on New Year’s Eve.

Authorities also said they are offering a reward of €10,000 (£7,500) for information leading to the arrest or identification of those who committed the atrocities.

So much for “secular” liberalism……….did not seem to do much “limit”ing…….

lizk

Even Jesus gives us choices on how we behave. Look at how bad in everything Sodom and Gomorrah was and God destroyed them. You should look up everything on Sodom and Gomorrah

John N

I have. That is how I know it is fictional.

If it would have been real, it would have refuted your point: it would show your vicious god had no mercy with people making the ‘wrong ‘ choice.

Chip01

Wow. That guy from Nerherland buried all your agreements.

Are you ok?

Amos Moses

In a Dutch newspaper, The Post, on-line article by Wilders, “Cologne Assaults May Soon Happen on Large Scale in Netherlands Too,” he wrote:

If we continue to allow asylum-seekers and immigrants from Islamic countries to settle in our country en masse, then what has happened on New Year’s Eve in Germany will soon happen on the same large scale in the Netherlands, too. The first signs are already there.

During the parliamentary debate on October 14, 2015, I quoted from emails of ordinary Dutch citizens suffering from the behavior of asylum seekers and immigrants. These mails referred to young girls being “immorally touched”, daughters being “harassed,” women who are told “I want to f___k you.”

The events in Cologne are the signs of a future which lies before us if the government and the majority of the parliamentarians refuse to face the truth.

Cologne is nearby. Our wives and daughters must be protected. The government needs to wake up. Mark Rutte must do his duty. Our borders must be closed. We must de-Islamize the Netherlands.
—————————————————————————-
But being “liberal” will solve all this, because Holland is nice to the LGBT.

Do i get that right?

Jolanda Tiellemans

Oh now you’re saying it will happen? Well that is totaly different of what you were saying in your previous comment.

But being “liberal” will solve all this, because Holland is nice to the LGBT.

Uhm, what has that to do with the other? Two completely different subjects. so what is the connection between the two?

Connect With Us:

Learn More

About Christian News Network

Christian News Network provides up-to-date news and information affecting the body of Christ worldwide from an uncompromising Biblical worldview. Our objective is to present the news with the word of God as our lens, and to bring to light what is hid in the darkness. Learn more →